September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"
nps.govThis is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington pleading for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home:
> The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
> ...It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
He could've written this last week.
[1] https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/W...
Washington was mad about political parties because his federalist-aligned coalition was collapsing. He resigned because of his declining health and because it was no longer obvious he could win if be ran again, and he feared the resulting reputational damage. There was extreme political contention at the time and Washington’s administration was becoming increasingly controversial. This very deeply bothered him, because he didn’t like opposition.
In the words of Thomas Paine: > Being now once more abroad in the world I began to find that I was not the only one who had conceived an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Washington. It was evident that his character was on the decline as well among Americans as among foreigners of different nations. From being the chief of a government, he had made himself the chief of a party; and his integrity was questioned, for his politics had a doubtful appearance.
This culminated in his federalist allies later criminalizing free speech and deporting dissidents under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The farewell address was an explicitly political speech and you should read it in its historical context. You wouldn’t read Bush, Obama, or Trump speeches and take them at face value. Don’t read past ones at face value.
That's an interesting take. Washington did not support the federalists in all things, in fact he likely prevented most of their extremist actions while he was in power. The citizen Genet affair had concerned him greatly, because Jefferson had invited the French in against the wishes of the state department. Sort of like Trump cozying up to dictators like Putin now, he worried about people putting faction over country, or putting themselves over the constitution. Your disapproval of Washington does explain a lot to me about how we've gotten to our current point, and tells me that he was not wrong to worry.
It was a coalition and Washington was certainly one of them. The Jay treaty was a defining moment in party identification.
If you read the letters I linked, I think you’ll find that my comment was fairly apropos - as in the Rush letter, you’re leveraging an idea of Washington they deliberately falsified. And of course a lot of the controversy was over the Constitution! (see the Paine letter I linked in the thread). Washington was a nakedly political animal and anyone that disagreed with him got labeled a factionalist, and anti federalist, etc. complaining about political parties was just his dressed up language for complaining about dissent.
Yes, politics was a blood sport back then for sure. Both sides absolutely hated each other, the Federalists were trying to rebuild the British federalist system (sneak peek: they were proven correct by history) and the Democratic-Republicans wanted to maintain the southern slave economy. Washington was attempting to maintain the coalition in any way possible ... a hoop for 13 staves. He recognized how Adams and Hamilton were just as bad as Jefferson and Madison, but he sided with them because he recognized they were ultimately correct. (And have been proven by 250 years of history to have been correct. Without federalism we have no modern banking, we have no strong federal government. We have no industrial economy. Fun fact, without it, we lose to the Axis powers! Why we continue to debate this is completely beyond me.) Yes, Washington was sometimes imperfect, because he had to make tough choices, like keeping us out of the French revolution. And remember that ultimately Hamilton supported Jefferson over Aaron Burr, that villain.
> He recognized how Adams and Hamilton were just as bad as Jefferson and Madison, but he sided with them because he recognized they were ultimately correct.
This would be a stronger argument if you had letters or direct quotes by him making statements like this. Meanwhile, Adams was shilling for Washington to be addressed as "His Majesty", not the kind of argument you make for someone you're not strongly backing.
> Fun fact, without it, we lose to the Axis powers!
This is a bizarre argument, as if the justification for the federalist side is a war happening one hundred years later, and which the US had no particular national-interest reason to involve itself in. (The Japanese would have not attacked Pearl Harbor without American interventionism in the Asian-Pacific.) It's impossible to say what US politics would have looked like if the antifederalists had won sooner (the federalist party totally collapsed after Jefferson was elected) so I have no idea what the basis for this counterfactual is anyway.
I find your anti-Washington takes equally bizarre, to be honest. I've read the biographies of most of the founding fathers, and in none of them does anyone strike out against the great man himself. Adams had his own problems, and Washington was very much not on board with the idea of a king, and explicitly told Adams to call him "Mr. President".
The letters I linked in this thread are an interesting place to get started: Benjamin Rush to John Adams: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5755
Thomas Paine to George Washington: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-...
Another good source would be the newspapers from the time: the Philadelphia Aurora had a good for the circulation of the time, was a "respected" paper (as far as that went then), and has lots of very nasty things to say about Washington during his presidency. It (and a selection of other papers) will give you a vastly better idea of the political climate than just about anything else you can get.
You can see a wide swath of people who knew Washington thought very poorly of him, especially militarily.
> I've read the biographies of most of the founding fathers, and in none of them does anyone strike out against the great man himself.
Reading biographies is better than nothing, but they usually have an agenda. Not that say, Paine or Rush didn't, but we're talking about how Washington was view among his contemporaries and how the speech was received and understood at the time. Later works are going to be clouded with different agendas, particularly the mythologization I mentioned.
I've read most of Paine and as much as I like him, he was an iconoclast, un-pragmatic to the core. He's not going to have a good opinion of anybody. Rush did not like Washington's military style, because he did not understand the necessity for fiat decision-making in an army ... again he was unrealistic and later grew to respect the man. So yes you can cherry-pick (npi) people who at one point or another did not like him. Politics is a blood-sport and anyone who has been in a leadership position understands you cannot make everybody happy ... that does not change in basic fact that Washington was at all times trying to make the right decisions for all 13 of the colonies. At core he was a pragmatist who believed in federal strength and yes Hamilton did much of his thinking for him. He did not love the English or the French too much and while Jefferson and Madison benefited from their friendship with France, they also got the Capitol burned. It would have been great to see what a President Hamilton would have done instead of Madison, but the Federalists pushed too far and Adams screwed that up nicely and ultimately destroyed his party.
The Rush letter is from 1812, not early on, and also cites many of Washington's "friends" saying the same things.
It was actually fairly widely held among his contemporaries that he was a poor military leader.
> The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
> Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
The second paragraph has a lot of emotional appeal, but the technical context in which it was written has massively changed. When Washington wrote this, intercontinental travel and commerce were powered by sails or horses, and the most advanced weapons were repeating guns that were cranked by hand; the most efficient printing press or workshops might have been driven by a water wheel.
Engines to power trains and ships, air travel, intercontinental missiles, satellite surveillance, instantaneous global communication, real-time video streaming, and programmatic information synthesis and distribution were unimaginable in the 18th century, but unavoidable military and economic realities in the 21st, and have great strategic importance. A nostalgic retreat into autarchy and isolation is about as realistic as erecting large statues to ward off natural disasters.
You have, without any context or explanation, quoted something which presumably states a point you are trying to make, one which seems at best a non sequitur to the parent's post if I am reading your intent correctly.
Care to use your own words to carry on the conversation rather than just stirring the pot with a seemingly unrelated and controversial opinion stated via someone else's words?
I think not getting too enmeshed in their politics is still generally a good idea though I doubt that George Washington of all people would be unsympathetic towards people fighting for their own independence and liberty against a foreign power looking to strip them of those rights
Since context is important the speech also references the Neutrality proclamation of 1793 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Neutrality). I would say the stuff on European policy needs to be viewed through the lens of the wars there at the time (which I think are these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition)
When Washington was giving this speech, France, the key benefactor to the infant United States, was in the middle of a pretty nasty revolution and probably really wanted some repayment for their help. So the context here might also be relevant, the US was basically saying "Uhh...yeah, as a matter of principle we really shouldn't get involved with whatever crazy stuff Europe is up to!"
So I think the context matters a lot, and I agree if Washington were alive today (and somehow able to function with the grievous age-related illnesses he'd be suffering) he'd generally support the established transatlantic alliance.
Washington was aligned with the Federalists, who were roughly speaking pro-British and anti-French. The antifederalists took the opposite tack.
You can see what the anti-federalists thought of this generally; Paine’s open letter to Washington airing some of the grievances is an interesting read.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-...
He also let Thomas Paine rot in a French prison.
> So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.
A key part.
Sure was a simpler time. Now we have Russia pointing nuclear weapons at all our major population centers, and the engagements we have with a number of our allies against this nation are not being fulfilled, in bad faith.
Yet the USA was the only country to drop atomic weapons on civilian populations. If country X didn't have nukes & wanted to remain sovereign, the USA + global banking cartel would impose a regime change. It would be better if relations were better. But that would require acting in good faith...which hasn't been the case. Most people want peace & for the various powers to act in good faith...as most people don't benefit from war, sanctions, tariffs, excessive taxation, & the multitude of other statutes that benefit centralized power, bureaucracy, oligopoly, & middle-men imposing rent.
All of this requires well-defined & consistent application of ethics. However, the language of ethics has been tortured to justify coercion & self-serving interests. The simulacra of morality is merely cover for will to power impulses.
Nonetheless, I believe that most people want fairness & morality. However, most people also face a dilemma at times. Sacrifice on the hill of Principles or gain something such as a home, food, wealth, ownership, control over something. If people choose Principles, then they may lose opportunities. If they choose to accumulate wealth in conflict with Principles, then the society rots, one selfish action at a time. Unfortunately, the social rules are often set up to create this conflict. And the simulacra of morality is a tempting panacea to have the "best of both worlds". Or one can do the hard work to choose a better set of Principles to take care of their needs & create peace & prosperity for most if not all.
> Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or very remote relation.
Right, but the implication he makes is now vacuous, as the precondition of ‘remote relation’ was no longer true once the world became ‘smaller’ through improvements in transportation, logistics, and communication.
Unfortunately people as a mass, don’t tend to learn from history. Or at least forget the lessons from history fairly easily. Maybe we are doomed to repeat the same historical lessons.
The US has been a 'democratic republic' for almost 250 years, so many generations have learned.
Such government has thrived in every culture and place, from East Asia to South Asia to almost all the Americas, many parts of Africa, Europe of course. Somehow, democracy works exceptionally well - far better than any alternative ever has - and is resilient.
... unless the people are somehow convinced that it is not, that it is not important, and they despair and give up.
Representative democracy only works when the people of the nation actually drive the formation of said government. The last 70+ years have shown that it explicitly does not work when imposed by third parties. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China, and Vietnam are all examples of this failure.
It’s not that those people should not have a say in their government. It’s that they clearly don’t have the coordinated will to organize it sustainably.
Maybe the rest of us just lucked out to have society form at just the right sweet spot of information spread without information control. But there’s clearly something different about all those places that it didn’t quite end up the way the rest of us would consider acceptable.
> Afghanistan, Iraq
Afghanistan never had an effective democratic government; Iraq may have one now.
> ... Iran, China, and Vietnam are all examples of this failure.
China, and Vietnam never had democratic governments or anything like them. Iran has had some semblence of one, but on a limited basis (ultimate power lies with religious leaders, who can even ban people from running in elections).
But parts of China have had very successful democratic governments - in Taiwan currently and formerly in Hong Kong.
> there’s clearly something different about all those places that it didn’t quite end up the way the rest of us would consider acceptable.
Why is there something 'clearly different'? There are many explanations. All the evidence we have is that people in China love and preserve democracy whenver they can.
Yet seemingly a large part of the population has forgotten the lessons from even 8 or 9 decades ago, the sequence of events that have led to events of the 30s and 40s.
Democracy is also not that old as far as human history goes. Empires and kingdoms have lasted longer, even individual ones.
Indeed. However, parliamentary democracies have a better track record of stability than federal structures (modeled after that of the US). Adjust for cultural and historical differences as you see fit, but the US has heretofore been an outlier.
Matt Yglesias wrote a great summary of this awhile back- https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doom...
Very interesting read as an Australian. Helped me with understanding why US politics feels so different to Australia despite the cultural similarities.
That's the very article I remembered, but couldn't find, when I wrote my comment.Your google-fu is better than mine!
Thanks for sharing, that was a great and prescient article.
Our system of government was predicated on different geographical interests pushing against each other, it was well understood that if “the rich” grouped together and put their class interest above the interests of the people around them, our system would fail. This language against factions, the paternal idea that rich elites would act against their own economic interests to serve some higher good… it had failed before it even started. We didn’t make it one term. While Washington was giving this speech there were already factions, that is why he was cautioning against them.
Two parties, each controlled entirely by corporate interests ferrying out puppets for the populace to choose from
The American republic is failing in exactly the ways Plato and Socrates would've predicted it would.
At this point I’d settle for the party that at least pretends to follow the rules they make.
It’s better for my mental
Spoiler: we could not in fact keep it.
The US "experiment" is touted as a success but it demonstrably is not. Less than 80 years after this utterance, the country descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought. The US was founded on white supremacy and chattel slavery. Chattel slavery may be gone but slavery is alive and well in the form of convict leasing. And of course white supremacy is resurgent.
As someone wh grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s, I rreally wish there was a way for younger people to experience that. There were problems, of course. The Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation loomed large. Homophobia was worse. Racism was worse.
Many, myself included, describe the 1990s as the last good decade. Standard-of-living peaked in 1972 [1] but even in the 1990s, things were still pretty good. Rent was cheap, housing was cheap, food was cheap. There were houses in the 1990s for under $100k that now sell for $2M+. I lived frugally but comfortably on $10k/year as a student, including renting a 2 bedroom apartment.
I cannot adequately express my view of how dire things are now. We are bouldering towards neofeudalism. There is no opposition. Nobody is coming to save us.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...
> There is no opposition. Nobody is coming to save us.
Of course. It depends on the people - either we oppose it and save us, or nobody will. That's the nature of democracy.
If you expect someone else to do it, that is, in a way, 'neofeudalism' - you are docile while some powerful person does things.
Realistically, virtually every revolution in history involved some degree of foreign assistance, and more organization than spontaneous popular action.
We can reclaim it.
How?
the country shall fall for everyone to see the failure of the current elites, so that place at the top is cleared for new people and new generation with new thinking and new approach
> the country descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought.
By what metric was that the most deadly?
If you get the chance to visit Independence Hall in Philadelphia, it's a must-see. Book your tickets in advance as they frequently sell out.
A couple interesting references in this article-
- The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering
- The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.
Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress.
One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.
There has been observation of the number of representatives in many legislatures follow cube root of population.
For US population, the ideal number would be 693 representatives. That would be close to 500,000 people per district.
~1000 would seem like a logical next step, would take out some of the money too.
I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical issue with the current building though.
1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.
What if it were a two-tiered system, in which 8500 local representatives elected their set of ~435 national representatives?
You're almost describing the Senate as originally configured.[1]
[1] https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-ap...
I am not sure why you think thousand of representatives are inherently difficult to manage.
Consider that for each representative you add, each individual representative becomes less influential and has fewer opportunities to affect change. While I do believe the house should be larger, perhaps 600 representatives, once the house gets too large you simply won’t be able to allocate speaking time on the floor in a reasonable way.
The house would organize itself around voting blocs and certain representatives would naturally end up exercising an undue amount of sway because they control those blocs. With each individual representative having much less influence, they’d have no choice but to gang together to try and achieve something.
This is how every functioning democracy already works. The blocs are called political parties.
Almost everyone chooses who to vote for based on which party best matches their ideology, not based on the individual candidate who happens to be endorsed by the party in their congressional district. So it’s not obvious why it’d be bad to decrease the influence of these individuals and increase the influence of parties.
Agreed.
Political parties are natural; what is not natural is our voting system that limits is to two realistic options.
Definitely. In functioning systems, parties splitting and merging is very common, and there are many different parties represented in parliament.
Floor time isn’t all that important. The important work is done in committee anyway (or in back rooms with lobbyists, but with 10x the representatives to lobby the value proposition there shifts a bit.)
they aren't supposed to be influential, they are supposed to vote on laws.
you are describing China's political system
A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be exactly the right amount of representation.
Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough
The reps actively seek bribes, because they need campaign warchests.
Whether there are 8,000 of them, or 400, that dynamic isn't going to change.
Also, at the moment the problem isn't bribes, the problem is that the tail is wagging the dog, and the Party will destroy anyone in it who dares to push back on the glorious leader.
Using the 14th Amendment to give corporations free speech rights combined with the belief that campaign contributions are a form of speech is a big part of the problem. The intention of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with corporations but someone wanted that hack and the consequences have been immense.
If we went back to campaigns being funded by individuals, the pandering to mega-corporations would be significantly reduced. Since wealth disparity exists, it still wouldn't eliminate the influence of wealthy donors but without corporations being able to effectively purchase elected officials, it's likely that wealth concentration would also be reduced.
Corporations are just groups of people, and the Constitution says that people have the right to associate. Restricting corporations from donating to campaigns just shifts the donations to wealthy individuals.
A proper constitutional amendment would ban corporations from political speech and donations and ban individuals from using more than X dollars towards a political campaign or PAC or commercial, dollar adjusted by year. That way, corporations are out of the picture altogether and the rich can't just self-fund political campaigns and ads.
Of course, that'll never get past Congress much less a bunch of state houses.
I actually think the advantage is that it is significantly more realistic to fund a campaign for a 40,000 size seat than a couple hundred thousand, so it’s easier to have upstart campaigns from third parties.
And yet if you look at who drives politics and finances all the campaigns in a small town, it's all the usual suspects. Landowners and major employers and sometimes some out of town gigacorp that wants to ban municipal broadband, or open a coal mine, or something of the sort.
For some reason, you never really get some field of a thousand flowers of unique political insights blooming.
> For some reason, you never really get some field of a thousand flowers of unique political insights blooming.
Not sure what you’re looking for, but the national scene howls whenever a locality gets creative with decriminalization or harm reduction or de-policing or school curriculums etc etc.
I would put it like this-- politics is a business. Being good at that business sometimes is simply about vilifying your opponents or taking stubborn uncompromising positions on issues that cry out for cross-aisle collaboration. When you brag about it in podcasts and mailers, people send you money, and that is good business, regardless of public policy.
None of that matters when the king wants your head for crossing him.
When given the choice between opposing Trump and making bad choices in governance, the people who did the former all lost their jobs, while the people who did the latter were all rewarded.
And that's how you get the current congressional crop.
This is very interesting to think about, though. What if there were many more representatives? It doesn't have to be one for every 40,000, but suppose there were 2,000 representatives. Of course there are logistical challenges to increasing the number of representatives, such as needing an increased budget for legislators' salaries, as well as having sufficient space for all of the legislators to meet.
I do see potential benefits to having more representatives, though I'm not a political scientist and these may just be educated guesses and aspirational hopes:
1. Since each representative's constituency would be smaller, we may see a greater mix of political reviews reflected in the House of Representatives, since larger constituencies may have an "averaging" effect.
2. It may be harder for special interests to exert their influence on 2,000 representatives compared to 435. Simultaneously, it may be easier for everyday people to influence their representatives since each district is smaller in population. Consider the impact somebody living in a small town has on government there, compared to someone living in a large city.
3. Related to #2, it may be harder for political parties to impose their will on representatives since they have a lot more people they have to influence.
4. If there were more opportunities for everyday people to serve as elected officials, then perhaps people may feel more invested in their government rather than seeing government as a distant entity that runs counter to the well-being of society. This could serve as an effective counter to the disaffectedness we see in modern American society.
Once again, though, these are just educated guesses.
We have legislated racial gerrymandering which that would do nothing to combat. The simple fix against gerrymandering is to get rid of the concept of districts and just let people vote on house members at the state level, and have enough representatives that one populous locale couldn't dominate the reps
Proportional representation as used by many parliamentary democracies solves gerrymandering.
It doesn't solve it, but it does make it much more difficult and should allow a 3rd party to get some power and possibly even a 4th one. I can see the republicans easily have a split of MAGA off as its own thing as more republicans grow disillusioned with the current chaos and thuggery.
I would think that majority-minority districts would arise more naturally with smaller districts. Currently the average district covers over three quarters of a million people, more than the population of Seattle. Something like fifty thousand people per district would give the neighborhood of Harlem in NYC four representatives.
It seems relevant to keep in mind that, IIUC, Octavian believed (or pretended to believe) that he was saving the Roman republic.
Quite the sliding door moment
It is too bad the current crop of pols are ignoring all these documents and setting up to steal assets from working and poor people.
I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude. The document was written by people who were actively amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial benefits.
The major benefit of the document was an establishment of a constitutional republic with the ability to modify the constitution when desired by a majority of the republics representatives. That was path breaking at a time when the world was steeped in feudal politics.
As far as I would think, each state could set their own requirements for voting, and some ownership of land was also a requirement from what I remember.
So Google suggested "who could vote in 1789” and the top result was from the Regan library.
https://reagan.blogs.archives.gov/2022/03/29/road-to-the-vot...
Reading...
"The most common requirements for voter eligibility was that each prospective voter had to be a white male who owned property of a certain dollar value.
"...by the time of the 1828 Presidential Election, the majority of the land-ownership requirements were eliminated from state laws. The final state to remove the property requirement was North Carolina in 1856, just five years before the Civil War began.
"...Certain states went through cycles where the right to vote was granted, removed, and re-granted to ethnic minorities over the course of decades... In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to all American men regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The right to vote was now Federally defined, but it would take one-hundred years of historical, social, and political developments for the VRA to universally enshrine it."
That essay is not well worded. They're confusing property in general with land specifically, with wasn't universal across the States. As I understand it, some States' property requirements could be met with non-land assets. See [1] for an interesting overview of the situation in New Jersey. The following quote makes no sense if property was restricted to land-only:
> Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced…and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers — but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen…in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"
> -- Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, taken from “The Casket, or the Flowers of Literature, Wit and Sentiment,” 1828
[1] https://www.amrevmuseum.org/virtualexhibits/when-women-lost-...
Alas, the search engine has led us astray once more.
> I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude.
No, the rules for who could vote were determined by the individual States. Women and Africans could vote in New Jersey when this document was written, for example.
Later Constitutional amendments made the practices much more consistent across States. Something to keep in mind is that people voting for Presidents and Senators is a 20th century invention, voting rights were much more local back then.
TIL:
> Suffrage was available to most women and African Americans in New Jersey immediately upon the formation of the state. The first New Jersey state constitution (of 1776) allowed any person who owned a certain value of property to become a voter. In 1790, the state constitution was changed to specify that voters were "he or she". Politicians seeking office deliberately courted women voters....
But, unfortunately:
> Under the auspices of election reform, in 1807 a "progressive" law was passed which abolished the property requirement for voting, boosting the number of eligible voters, while explicitly barring women and black voters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_New_Je...
Thank you for that!
> The document was written by people who were actively amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial benefit
Fair, but the document was written 200 years ago and society evolves....