Argument By James Kent's Opposition To Universal Suffrage

The first argument by James Kent was in opposition of universal suffrage. His main opposition was because he feared letting the general masses have control. Kent feared it would hurt “the rights of property and principles of liberty.” Kent argued that allowing universal suffrage would be damaging to their cities well-being. He used the example of countries such as France or England and how if they turned to universal suffrage, the poor people, without any property, would be in control. Kent then stated that allowing them control would destroy those countries. He went on to say that New York was on its way to becoming an unwieldly population. It had potential to become the London of America, which was not a good thing in his opinion. Kent also argued that the common man should not be entitled to equal participation in the government. He firmly believed that if a person was not contributing greatly to the society, they should not have any right to vote. Kent argued that universal suffrage would be …show more content…
He also feared it would cause trouble and uprisings to give power to those he thought uneducated. Kent predicted that the future of New York would be like London. The poor would overrun it. He feared that since New York was so large and many of its population were without land, universal suffrage would be giving the power to the poor. According to David Buel, American society could not be compared to European society at all, because those two societies were two different. Buel argued that European kingdoms kept land in the hands of a few, but that America already had the tendency to spread the land to the hands of many. Buel uses the constitution of New England to show how they did not exclude the many who are not property holders in the right to vote and in doing so they have enjoyed that system of government with no ill