America was a Timocracy at its founding...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
We may have been a Timocracy in the early days of our Republic because only property owners were allowed to vote. If so, could be mot argue America was not a founding of a Republic but the founding of a Timocracy. it may explain our nation's slow shift to Plutocracy... I like to point out that in the early days of our Timocracy Senators and Presidents were not directly elected to office... Our history is incorrect that we were a Republic or a Democracy but a Timocracy at our founding shaded in a Democratic facade.


A timocracy (from Greek τιμή timē, "honor, worth" and -κρατία -kratia, "rule")[1] in Aristotle's Politics is a state where only property owners may participate in government. More advanced forms of timocracy, where power derives entirely from wealth with no regard for social or civic responsibility, may shift in their form and become a plutocracy where the wealthy rule.


Immediately after the Revolution most states retained some PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS that prevented poor people from voting. Following republican logic, citizens were believed to need an economic stake in society in order to be trusted to vote wisely. If a voter lacked economic independence, then it seemed that those who controlled his livelihood could easily manipulate his vote.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
Here is an article about our Founding Fathers wanting to limit democracy for the people. The writer nor anyone will call us a Timocracy but we were all but in name... its a good read...


“It was never meant to be a sort of direct democracy, where all Americans would get to cast a ballot on all issues,” says Andrew Wehrman, an associate professor of history at Central Michigan University. “The vote itself, they thought, ought to be reserved for people of wealth and education, but they certainly didn't want to restrict all those other kinds of political participation.

“These were the kinds [of people] that thought that democracy was a dirty word. Even John Adams said stuff like that. He didn't want poor people to vote, he didn't want women to vote,” Wehrman says.

“The founders didn't want this sort of democracy at all. The Constitution is written so that citizenship rights are very, very limited,” he says. “They worried about democracy ... It was a bad form of government because once you let everybody participate, then you're likely to elect a demagogue. You're likely to have people come to power who appeal to the frenzy of the masses. That idea is long gone.”

“Clearly, the Constitution was written and enacted to pull back some of the actions that were taken by state legislatures. People like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton thought that the state legislatures and voters in most states had gone too far, that too many people were participating in politics, too many people were voting,” says Wehrman.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
This is an article about the Founding Fathers' fear of mob rule...


"The body of people … do not possess the discernment and stability necessary for systematic government. To deny that they are frequently led into the grossest errors by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their
own good sense must despise." --Alexander Hamilton.

"The history of ancient and modern republics has taught [us]… that popular assemblies are frequently misguided by ignorance, by sudden impulses and [by] the intrigues of ambitious men," said Hamilton. And it wasn’t just Hamilton who was worried about "too much" democracy
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
John Adams knew only property owners should vote...


James Sullivan, a state court judge in Massachusetts and colleague of John Adams, was often sympathetic to those who thought women and non-elite men should have a voice in the new nation’s government. Adams disagreed, explaining to Sullivan why men without property and women should be excluded. Some spelling changes and edits have been made to improve clarity.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
Becoming a freeholder was not difficult for a man in colonial America since land was plentiful and cheap. Thus up to 75 percent of the adult males in most colonies qualified as voters. But this voting group fell far short of a majority of the people then living in the English colonies. After eliminating everyone under the age of 21, all slaves and women, most Jews and Catholics, plus those men too poor to be freeholders, the colonial electorate consisted of perhaps only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population.

Challenges to voting rights in this country, like the ones we've seen recently, are hardly a 21st-century invention. Entrenched groups have long tried to keep the vote out of the hands of the less powerful. Indeed, America began its great democratic experiment in the late 1700s by granting the right to vote to a narrow subset of society — white male landowners. Even as barriers to voting began receding in the ensuing decades, many Southern states erected new ones, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, aimed at keeping the vote out of the hands of African American men.


This is a timeline of America voting laws from 1776...


Declaration of Independence signed. Right to vote during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods is restricted to property owners - most of whom are white male Protestants over the age of 21. But, New Jersey's constitution of the same year enfranchised all adult inhabitants who owned a specified amount of property, including women.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
Steve Bannon wants a Timocracy...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/28/steve-bannon-once-suggested-only-property-owners-should-vote-what-would-that-look-like/

A change to allow only homeowners to vote would mean millions of African-Americans and other ethnic minorities would lose the right to cast their ballot – something Mr Bannon allegedly said was not a bad thing.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
The Founding Fathers punted the right to vote to the states...



In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property....
Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
James Madison proves my point...

In a debate on June 26, he said that the government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and that unchecked, democratic communities were subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions". - James Madison...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
Here is the whole quote by James Madison and we revere our Constitution knowing it for the opulent and slaveholders...

“The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. ... unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes...”

― James Madison
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
Here is an article that shows again and again the Constitution is for the landed gentry... Our Founding Fathers were Libertarians... The article just makes the point that our Founding Fathers believed Property was Liberty, not Democracy.


Drawn from the elite propertied segments of late British colonial North America, the delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention shared their compatriot John Jay’s view that “the people who own the country ought to govern it.”

: “in their minds, liberty was not linked not to democracy but to property.” Democracy was a dangerous concept to them, conferring “unchecked rule by the masses,” which was “sure to bring arbitrary redistribution of property, destroying the very essence of liberty.”


the Founders’ curious notion of what they liked to call popular government.
“Let it stand as a principle,” Belknap wrote to an associate, “that government originates from the people, but let the people be taught…that they are unable to govern themselves.”

For all but one of the U.S. Constitution’s framers (James Wilson), Nedelsky noted, protection of “property” (meaning in essence the people who owned large amounts of it) was “the main object of government.” The non-affluent, non-propertied and slightly propertied popular majority was for the framers “a problem to be contained.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention” and “incompatible with…the rights of property.” Democratic governments gave rise, Madison felt, to “factious leaders” who could “kindle a flame” amongst the dangerous masses for “improper and wicked projects” like “the printing of paper money,” “abolition of debts,” and “an equal division of property.”

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
9,880
Reaction score
4,369
This video will give you thoughts...

 
Top