Throughout the reign of Andrew Jackson there was lots of talk about whether or not it would be a good political move to adjust the requirements for the right to vote. The problem was that nobody was confident or very open to many changes regarding the matter at hand. During this time period there were many valid arguments regarding pro and con thoughts about suffrage expansion.
Pro-suffrage expansion was very argumentatively. In 1821, a convention was held in New York State held to review the state constitution. Nathan Sanford, who was the chairman of this committee, supported the idea that all white men regardless of land ownership should be allowed to vote. "Those who contribute to the public support we consider as entitled to a share of the election of rulers." This quote said by Mr. Sanford basically means that all of those who contribute to society should have a say in whom shall makes executive decisions that may affect the general population. Also in favor of suffrage expansion was George Bancroft. Mr. Bancroft had stated, "...the best government rests on the people and not on the few, on persons and not on the property, on the free development of public opinion and not on authority..." by this he meant that everybody regardless of who the individual is should be allowed to vote. Voting is a right that all citizens deserve to have.
The cons of suffrage expansion are strong as well. James Kent, who was Chief Justice in the highest court in New York, was a part of the group that opposed expansion of suffrage rights in the United States. Kent had the idea that those who made up the poorer lower class were lazy and non-productive individuals and should not have the same political rights as those who made the richer upper class. Although he had publicly made these points, they were not valid arguments because they were strongly opinionated rather than factual.
Both sides of the argument each shared their own set of positives and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document