Which of the four basic reasons for colonial governments being more representative (p. 39) was the greatest impactor on American's voice in government? ALSO, challenge at least one other person's view not the same as your own.
As it says in the book, the American colonists believed that the security of their life and liberty depended on the security and protection of their property. Therefore, a person had to own a minimum of fifty acres of land before having the ability to vote. Because of the ownership requirement, neither women nor Blacks had the ability to vote, limiting the range of voters in America. By limiting the eligible voters in this way, the voter's 'voice' was severly impacted. Imagine a vote being taken on the issue of public school uniforms, with only the votes from white males counting. Of the American colonists, at least half of the opinions of the population were not being represented, for the simple reason that they were not wanted.
The most important aspect of our government is that, even though the country is huge, every states interests are still protected. The biggest impactor on American's voice in government is that there are legislators from each district, state or any other area they represented. That means that they would protect the interests of the people they were elected by. The land restriction actually increased the number of eligible voters because it was very easy to obtain land in America.
The American colonies were more represented then the Parliament. This was because in America the law was that in order to have the right to vote (suffrage) one had to own 50 acres or more of land. This may seem like a difficult requirement to meet, but land was easily come across in America, thus allowing more people to vote, and better representing the colonies voice.
I dont agree with chalotte de berry because owning land may not be a good way to represent the people now, however, since only white men could vote back then it was a resonable way to determin who could vote back then. The combination of abundance of land and an eager spirit made land an obvious way to decide voting elegability. The governmnet truly wanted to hear the voice of the people who had made it in the new country.
"Fifty acres was the usual requirement for voting in the colonies (39)." Land was immensely easier to obtain in the newly form states then it was in England. There was a great abundance of land in which citizens could purchase at a resonable price. In England it was required that a voter must possess atleast 50 acres. Yet in this country land was not as cheap and in supply as the Americas so voters usually consisted of wealthy elite men. The British believed that there should be a "property requirement for the enjoyment of political rights (39)." In America since the land was cheaper and easier to come the demographic of voters consister of people from all economic backgrounds. This had a great impact on American's voice in goverment, decisions could be based upon the feelings and livleyhoods of true citizens. Votes were not based upon what the elite though was happening to the unfortuanate. People of the new America were in control of their goverment and their lives.
I dont fully believe what Cap'n Raja Seabeard stated, about how elected officials have the true intrests of protecting their voters. I'm sure that the officials are greatly apprieciative of the voters for electing them, yet not always to political figures have the best intrests of citizens in mind. In the modern world political figures take bribes and money for there own well being while other citizens of the country are in dier need of aid. I dont think this is or was the greatest impactor on American's voice in goverment.
The greatest deciding factor that made the american governmental system better in terms of representation was the fact that officials were elected from the areas that they represented. For example: they wouldnt elect a providence resident to be in charge in narragansett. The people in charge weren't poloticians, they were normal people and they had their friends and nieghbors best interests in mind as well as their own. I disagree with all of you who are saying that the big influence was land due to the fact that people who didn't have fifty acres still should have been able to vote as they still were members of the community.
I believe that out of the four basic reasons for colonial governments being more representative, voting was the greatest impactor on an American's voice in government. In order for an American to receive the right to vote they had to own at least 50 acres of land. Land was so cheep and readily available at the time, though, it was not difficult for someone to buy this much land. This allowed for more eligible voters throughout America, which meant that the colonial legislatures were more representative. Cap'n Raja Seabeard's comment about how the states interests are always protected is not entirely true in my eyes. The representatives from each state are elected by the people to be their voice in government, but if a representative has a different idea about something then the represented do, then they might just vote for what they feel is right and not what the people want. That is why the states best interest sometimes lies in the hands of the representative, rather than that of the people.
Even though cap'n raja brings up a good point, s/he is wrong. It is a somewhat romaticized opinion that each legislative official accurately represents the people that elected them; the truth of the matter is that most officials, once elected, become less civicly minded, and more interested in what they think would benefit the people.
To further comment on what cap'n seabeard said, the availability of land not only increased the number of elegible voters, as only white males were allowed to own property, but it increased the number of non-elegible voters by a much larger margin.
I believe that the Massachusetts body of liverties was the most important of the four. The laws and liverties of 1648 was also important but it may not have even been made if the Massachusetts body of liberties was not made. The Mass. body of liverties protected against abusive powers. This was very important to Americans Voice in government becausse if the abusive power was present in Americans lives then they would not be allowed to speak of their own oppinions, they would be held back by their abusers, This isn't the only thing that the Massachusetts body of liberties protected, they also guarenteed trial by jury, free elections, and the right of free free men to own property. Without free elextions their would be no organization in the government, thus a new nation could not be created.
One reason that the American Colonial government was more representative than Britian's government was that more people could vote. Since the colonists believed that the security of their life and liberty depended on the security of their property, those with 50 acres of land or more was the usual requirement for voting. Since there was more land that was available the number of voters was proportionally larger than England's. Although only the white males could own property, so they were the only ones who had their opinion voiced.
Of the four reasons for colonial governments being more representative, suffrage and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties were the most significant. The two are very separate, however, both very necessary to a representative government. Truthfully, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties made a bigger impact on the representative government. Now the right to vote for your representatives is extremely important for the people, but protection of their individual rights comes first. This act also technically established what could be looked at as America's first Bill of Rights. It guaranteed trial by jury, free elections, and the right of free men to own property. It also included the right for nonvoters to petition. It gave everyone a right to their own opinion and a right to express it (in non cruel or unusual ways).
I believe that allowing those who possessed at least fifty acres of land to vote had the greatest impact on American's voice of the peopele in governmnet. As fifty acres was a small amount of property and was so easily aquired in America, "the body of eligible voters was proportionally larger than in England" (39). The increase in eligible voters consequently made the colonial legislatures more representitive. In England, the proportion of society that could enjoy political rights such as this, was so much smaller because they had nowhere near the economic opportunities that America had.
I would like to challenge charlotte de berry's view becuase I feel that instead of limiting the amount of eligible voters this gave so many more men the opportunity to vote. I agree that yes, today it seems so obviously unfair and restrictive to allow only white men with a small amount of property the right to vote and therefore exclude all men with dark skin or men who don't have fifty acres as well as women from this right. However, this was just the first step and it was definitely a step in the right direction. In England, these men would never have a say in anything political, but in America the increased amount of eligibilty increased the voice of the people substantialy. Using her analaogy with the uniforms: in England only boys at the school with blonde hair could vote on the issue, but in America boys that went to that school who owned a pencil could now vote - imagine the increase in eligible voters!
Although it may not seem like it now,land was in abundance along the East Coast back then. A man could very easily acquire that needed 50 acres. Women were very easily considered property of their husbands and slaves were property to their masters.Were they people? Of course. Did the government care? Not really. They wanted only men who appeared to be of sound mind and body to be able to vote since owning land is something really had a meaning to it back then. Since they had come from nothing and now they can do whatever they want.
Out of the four basic reasons, the one that was a major impact on our government being more representive was that more people were allowed to vote. In Britain, only the upper class could vote, which was made up of very few compared to the rest of the population. Even then, it was limited. Since Americans belived that the amount of security you had on your life and liberty depended on the amount of protection on your property. Since the requirement was you had to own at least 50 acres in order to vote, with plenty of land for everyone, more people could participate. Even though women and blacks were left out, there were still more partaking than in Britain.
The most basic reason was due to suffrage. Because all voices were not being heard it made an impact on the colonies. However this is not the MOST important that reason would've been because that " life and liberty depended on the security of property"and also the colonial legislatures. Because property was valued so highly the people wanted to make sure the right people were in government protecting it.
Carol the Cannon MacKenzie said that basically it was because the colonies valued land so greatly. This as because there brothers over in England couldn't obtain land so easily without nobility something one is not able to obtain but be inherited. However the question is 'Which of the four basic reasons for colonial governments' not the British. The American colonies already had land and yes even though they new how lucky they were that didn't mean it was one of the leading four reasons. The main reason was the colonial legislature because without them the colonies wouldn't of had equal representation in all districts. " Unlike their British counterparts, colonial legislators usually came from the districts they represented and were considered to be the agents of their constitutions interests".
The choice of candidates forcolonial elections was the greatest impactor on Americans vpice in government because it allowed for the citizens of America to be more detailed in who they want to be in power and what they want these people to stand up for.
Out of the four reasons that American colonial governments were more representative than the British government, having each colony individually represented - as opposed to all being represented as one body by one body of people - had the greatest impact on the voices the American colonists in government. Having legislators "from the districts they represented" as "agents of their constituents' interests" (p. 39) is the "We the People" book's way of saying that the American peoples' interests were better represented and protected by officials that were actually chosen to speak for their colony and its peoples' views. Of course the colonies were better represented this way; a legislator (or any official, really) is far more likely to stand for the interests of their home rather than someone who is trying to represent the people in all of the colonies at once. When it came to butting heads over issues, each representative voiced the opinions of those who voted for them, essentially getting across the opinions of PEOPLE, not of "the whole". Without...well, the "common people" being represented by people they approve of, they aren't going to be happy with many things that can happen without their consent. More well-to-do people were qualified to vote in Britain, so their voices influenced the voice of the nation as a whole - and that's not very appealing to the people who aren't being heard from! What I'm trying to say is, the American's voices in government were far clearer thanks to how officials were chosen.
Charlotte de Berry is absolutely right, and made an excellent post - property abounds in the colonies is DEFINITELY one of the biggest impactors on American's voices in government. That'd be my number two pick for this entry. My argument is small, but I'd still like to follow through with it; even those that aren't qualified to vote can voice their opinions and try to sway those that are able to vote. White women who took an interest in government, at the least, might have been listened to by their husbands - some people always take others' opinions to heart, and ideas can stick in a person's mind. So, by affecting others' opinions, in some cases, those not qualified to vote may have at least been able to get their voices across in some way...
The one that had the greatest impact was that one had to own 50 acres of land to vote. However, I think that for a completely opposite reason others have. Some have said that this had a large impact because it was easy to aquire 50 acres, but it was, in fact, a large impact because women and blacks were not allowed to own land. Therefor, they could not meet the requirements to vote. This led to the elections being up to just a fraction of the population rather than the entire population as it should be.
I agree with Keel-Haulin' Blythe. Voting to me was a huge difference and also the representation. Although Charlotte de berry has a very good point, that not everyone is represented, it is better then how it was in England. When they had no say in what was going on. Therefore i have to disagree with everyone who is saying land because, yes it was easier then it was in England, but still hard for a lot of people!
The American colonists believed that the security of their life and liberty depended on the security and protection of their property. Plus, if you had more than 50 acres of land, you were allowed to vote, and since there was a lot of land to be had, voting was a pretty easy deal.
22 comments:
As it says in the book, the American colonists believed that the security of their life and liberty depended on the security and protection of their property. Therefore, a person had to own a minimum of fifty acres of land before having the ability to vote. Because of the ownership requirement, neither women nor Blacks had the ability to vote, limiting the range of voters in America. By limiting the eligible voters in this way, the voter's 'voice' was severly impacted. Imagine a vote being taken on the issue of public school uniforms, with only the votes from white males counting. Of the American colonists, at least half of the opinions of the population were not being represented, for the simple reason that they were not wanted.
The most important aspect of our government is that, even though the country is huge, every states interests are still protected. The biggest impactor on American's voice in government is that there are legislators from each district, state or any other area they represented. That means that they would protect the interests of the people they were elected by. The land restriction actually increased the number of eligible voters because it was very easy to obtain land in America.
The American colonies were more represented then the Parliament. This was because in America the law was that in order to have the right to vote (suffrage) one had to own 50 acres or more of land. This may seem like a difficult requirement to meet, but land was easily come across in America, thus allowing more people to vote, and better representing the colonies voice.
I dont agree with chalotte de berry because owning land may not be a good way to represent the people now, however, since only white men could vote back then it was a resonable way to determin who could vote back then. The combination of abundance of land and an eager spirit made land an obvious way to decide voting elegability. The governmnet truly wanted to hear the voice of the people who had made it in the new country.
"Fifty acres was the usual requirement for voting in the colonies (39)." Land was immensely easier to obtain in the newly form states then it was in England. There was a great abundance of land in which citizens could purchase at a resonable price. In England it was required that a voter must possess atleast 50 acres. Yet in this country land was not as cheap and in supply as the Americas so voters usually consisted of wealthy elite men. The British believed that there should be a "property requirement for the enjoyment of political rights (39)." In America since the land was cheaper and easier to come the demographic of voters consister of people from all economic backgrounds. This had a great impact on American's voice in goverment, decisions could be based upon the feelings and livleyhoods of true citizens. Votes were not based upon what the elite though was happening to the unfortuanate. People of the new America were in control of their goverment and their lives.
I dont fully believe what Cap'n Raja Seabeard stated, about how elected officials have the true intrests of protecting their voters. I'm sure that the officials are greatly apprieciative of the voters for electing them, yet not always to political figures have the best intrests of citizens in mind. In the modern world political figures take bribes and money for there own well being while other citizens of the country are in dier need of aid. I dont think this is or was the greatest impactor on American's voice in goverment.
The greatest deciding factor that made the american governmental system better in terms of representation was the fact that officials were elected from the areas that they represented. For example: they wouldnt elect a providence resident to be in charge in narragansett. The people in charge weren't poloticians, they were normal people and they had their friends and nieghbors best interests in mind as well as their own.
I disagree with all of you who are saying that the big influence was land due to the fact that people who didn't have fifty acres still should have been able to vote as they still were members of the community.
I believe that out of the four basic reasons for colonial governments being more representative, voting was the greatest impactor on an American's voice in government. In order for an American to receive the right to vote they had to own at least 50 acres of land. Land was so cheep and readily available at the time, though, it was not difficult for someone to buy this much land. This allowed for more eligible voters throughout America, which meant that the colonial legislatures were more representative. Cap'n Raja Seabeard's comment about how the states interests are always protected is not entirely true in my eyes. The representatives from each state are elected by the people to be their voice in government, but if a representative has a different idea about something then the represented do, then they might just vote for what they feel is right and not what the people want. That is why the states best interest sometimes lies in the hands of the representative, rather than that of the people.
Even though cap'n raja brings up a good point, s/he is wrong. It is a somewhat romaticized opinion that each legislative official accurately represents the people that elected them; the truth of the matter is that most officials, once elected, become less civicly minded, and more interested in what they think would benefit the people.
To further comment on what cap'n seabeard said, the availability of land not only increased the number of elegible voters, as only white males were allowed to own property, but it increased the number of non-elegible voters by a much larger margin.
I believe that the Massachusetts body of liverties was the most important of the four. The laws and liverties of 1648 was also important but it may not have even been made if the Massachusetts body of liberties was not made. The Mass. body of liverties protected against abusive powers. This was very important to Americans Voice in government becausse if the abusive power was present in Americans lives then they would not be allowed to speak of their own oppinions, they would be held back by their abusers, This isn't the only thing that the Massachusetts body of liberties protected, they also guarenteed trial by jury, free elections, and the right of free free men to own property. Without free elextions their would be no organization in the government, thus a new nation could not be created.
One reason that the American Colonial government was more representative than Britian's government was that more people could vote. Since the colonists believed that the security of their life and liberty depended on the security of their property, those with 50 acres of land or more was the usual requirement for voting. Since there was more land that was available the number of voters was proportionally larger than England's. Although only the white males could own property, so they were the only ones who had their opinion voiced.
Of the four reasons for colonial governments being more representative, suffrage and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties were the most significant. The two are very separate, however, both very necessary to a representative government. Truthfully, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties made a bigger impact on the representative government. Now the right to vote for your representatives is extremely important for the people, but protection of their individual rights comes first. This act also technically established what could be looked at as America's first Bill of Rights. It guaranteed trial by jury, free elections, and the right of free men to own property. It also included the right for nonvoters to petition. It gave everyone a right to their own opinion and a right to express it (in non cruel or unusual ways).
I believe that allowing those who possessed at least fifty acres of land to vote had the greatest impact on American's voice of the peopele in governmnet. As fifty acres was a small amount of property and was so easily aquired in America, "the body of eligible voters was proportionally larger than in England" (39). The increase in eligible voters consequently made the colonial legislatures more representitive. In England, the proportion of society that could enjoy political rights such as this, was so much smaller because they had nowhere near the economic opportunities that America had.
I would like to challenge charlotte de berry's view becuase I feel that instead of limiting the amount of eligible voters this gave so many more men the opportunity to vote. I agree that yes, today it seems so obviously unfair and restrictive to allow only white men with a small amount of property the right to vote and therefore exclude all men with dark skin or men who don't have fifty acres as well as women from this right. However, this was just the first step and it was definitely a step in the right direction. In England, these men would never have a say in anything political, but in America the increased amount of eligibilty increased the voice of the people substantialy. Using her analaogy with the uniforms: in England only boys at the school with blonde hair could vote on the issue, but in America boys that went to that school who owned a pencil could now vote - imagine the increase in eligible voters!
Although it may not seem like it now,land was in abundance along the East Coast back then. A man could very easily acquire that needed 50 acres. Women were very easily considered property of their husbands and slaves were property to their masters.Were they people? Of course. Did the government care? Not really. They wanted only men who appeared to be of sound mind and body to be able to vote since owning land is something really had a meaning to it back then. Since they had come from nothing and now they can do whatever they want.
Out of the four basic reasons, the one that was a major impact on our government being more representive was that more people were allowed to vote. In Britain, only the upper class could vote, which was made up of very few compared to the rest of the population. Even then, it was limited. Since Americans belived that the amount of security you had on your life and liberty depended on the amount of protection on your property. Since the requirement was you had to own at least 50 acres in order to vote, with plenty of land for everyone, more people could participate. Even though women and blacks were left out, there were still more partaking than in Britain.
The most basic reason was due to suffrage. Because all voices were not being heard it made an impact on the colonies. However this is not the MOST important that reason would've been because that " life and liberty depended on the security of property"and also the colonial legislatures. Because property was valued so highly the people wanted to make sure the right people were in government protecting it.
Carol the Cannon MacKenzie said that basically it was because the colonies valued land so greatly. This as because there brothers over in England couldn't obtain land so easily without nobility something one is not able to obtain but be inherited. However the question is 'Which of the four basic reasons for colonial governments' not the British. The American colonies already had land and yes even though they new how lucky they were that didn't mean it was one of the leading four reasons. The main reason was the colonial legislature because without them the colonies wouldn't of had equal representation in all districts. " Unlike their British counterparts, colonial legislators usually came from the districts they represented and were considered to be the agents of their constitutions interests".
The choice of candidates forcolonial elections was the greatest impactor on Americans vpice in government because it allowed for the citizens of America to be more detailed in who they want to be in power and what they want these people to stand up for.
Out of the four reasons that American colonial governments were more representative than the British government, having each colony individually represented - as opposed to all being represented as one body by one body of people - had the greatest impact on the voices the American colonists in government. Having legislators "from the districts they represented" as "agents of their constituents' interests" (p. 39) is the "We the People" book's way of saying that the American peoples' interests were better represented and protected by officials that were actually chosen to speak for their colony and its peoples' views. Of course the colonies were better represented this way; a legislator (or any official, really) is far more likely to stand for the interests of their home rather than someone who is trying to represent the people in all of the colonies at once. When it came to butting heads over issues, each representative voiced the opinions of those who voted for them, essentially getting across the opinions of PEOPLE, not of "the whole". Without...well, the "common people" being represented by people they approve of, they aren't going to be happy with many things that can happen without their consent. More well-to-do people were qualified to vote in Britain, so their voices influenced the voice of the nation as a whole - and that's not very appealing to the people who aren't being heard from! What I'm trying to say is, the American's voices in government were far clearer thanks to how officials were chosen.
Charlotte de Berry is absolutely right, and made an excellent post - property abounds in the colonies is DEFINITELY one of the biggest impactors on American's voices in government. That'd be my number two pick for this entry. My argument is small, but I'd still like to follow through with it; even those that aren't qualified to vote can voice their opinions and try to sway those that are able to vote. White women who took an interest in government, at the least, might have been listened to by their husbands - some people always take others' opinions to heart, and ideas can stick in a person's mind. So, by affecting others' opinions, in some cases, those not qualified to vote may have at least been able to get their voices across in some way...
The one that had the greatest impact was that one had to own 50 acres of land to vote. However, I think that for a completely opposite reason others have. Some have said that this had a large impact because it was easy to aquire 50 acres, but it was, in fact, a large impact because women and blacks were not allowed to own land. Therefor, they could not meet the requirements to vote. This led to the elections being up to just a fraction of the population rather than the entire population as it should be.
I agree with Keel-Haulin' Blythe. Voting to me was a huge difference and also the representation. Although Charlotte de berry has a very good point, that not everyone is represented, it is better then how it was in England. When they had no say in what was going on. Therefore i have to disagree with everyone who is saying land because, yes it was easier then it was in England, but still hard for a lot of people!
The American colonists believed that the security of their life and liberty depended on the security and protection of their property. Plus, if you had more than 50 acres of land, you were allowed to vote, and since there was a lot of land to be had, voting was a pretty easy deal.
Post a Comment