OT..American War Of Independence..what if ?? | Forums

[AKA_TAGERT]

[WWMaxGunz]

[AKA_TAGERT]

[joeap]

Soooo, was the US a democracy in the 18th century? Was any country? Better to judge by the standards of the time. What do you all think the American revolutionaries meant by the "tyranny" of the British crown?

[panther3485]

Hi there, joeap

By today's standards in Western countries, any nation that did not allow adults of both sexes to vote in elections probably would not be considered a 'democracy'.

But this has been a relatively recent development and during the 19th century for example, those countries that allowed universal male suffrage would no doubt have thought of themselves as very enlightened, modern 'democracies' then!
I suspect the general feeling would have been that women did not 'need' to vote (after all, their husbands voted and wasn't that enough? And besides, what did women know of such things?)

Then, before that in some countries, it was only men who were landowners that were entitled to vote. The uneducated peasantry didn't need to vote, did they? Besides, what would they know of such things? Better to leave the decision-making to those who were fit for it - the wealthy, educated elite!

Ahem!


I'm not too sure what the electoral arrangements were in the American colonies and the young emerging USA of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Perhaps somebody here can clue us up on that? Not my strong area, I'm afraid!


Best regards,
panther3485

[joeap]

I think all male citizens could vote in the US, that is all free (ie. white for the most part as slaves wre obviously excluded) male citizens, regardless if they were simple farmers or landowners or clockmakers...I am pretty sure it was only the landowning aristocracy that was enfranchised in the Uk for a long time.

[Low_Flyer_MkVb]

Wasn't the whole starting point of the rebellion that the colonists didn't have members of Parliament? 'No taxation without representation' and all that. That representation would have been on the British model, and only available to male landowners. Perhaps this was a useful grieveance for those with their own agenda to hang thier coat on?

[WWMaxGunz]

I thought that the list in the Declaration was pretty clear without going into total detail.
No representation and a load of screwey laws. People that came here were not supposed to be
making lives so much as providing cheap materials and a chump market for the homeland. There
had to be a change and that was seen coming at many levels of the society.

Funny how the same guys then would be labelled today and acted upon if they got too loud.

[Bearcat99]

OK you 3... this is the last warning.. the next one who crosses the line will be given a time out.

You know who you are.....

[Bearcat99]

Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Wasn't the whole starting point of the rebellion that the colonists didn't have members of Parliament? 'No taxation without representation' and all that. That representation would have been on the British model, and only available to male landowners. Perhaps this was a useful grieveance for those with their own agenda to hang thier coat on?

Yes if I am not mistaken you are right... as flawed as our system was and in many ways still is in it's implementation... you have to admit.. a lot of this stuff was really revolutionary (no pun intended) at the time.