In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

t he suffr age 26 The Non-Freeholders’ Memorial The best statement of the case f or a broad suff rage was “The Memorial of the Non-Freeholders of the City of Richmond.” John Marshall dutifully presented it to the convention on October 13, and it was referred to the legislative committee. Your memorialists, as their designation impor ts, belong to that c lass of citizens, who, not having the good fortune to possess a certain portion of land, are, for that cause only, debarred from the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Experience has but too c learly evinced, what, indeed, reason had always foretold, by how frail a tenure they hold every other right, who are denied this, the highest prerogative of freemen.The want of it has afforded both the pretext and the means of excluding the entire class, to which your memorialists belong, f rom all participation in the r ecent election of the body, they now r espectfully address. Comprising a very large part, probably a majority of male citiz ens of mature age, they have been passed by, like aliens or slav es, as if destitute of inter est, or unworthy of a v oice, in measures involving their f utur e political destiny: whilst the f reeholders, sole possessors, under the existing Constitution, of the electiv e franchise, have, upon the strength of that possession alone, asserted and maintained in themselves, the exclusive power of new-modelling the fundamental laws of the State: in other words, have seized upon the sovereign authority. It cannot be necessary, in addressing the Convention now assembled, to expatiate on the momentous importance of the right of suffrage, or to enumerate the evils consequent upon its unjust limitation.Were there no other From Proceedings, pp. 25–31. The Non-Freeholders’ Memorial 337 than that your memorialists have brought to your attention, and which has made them feel with full for ce their degraded condition, well might it justify their best eff orts to obtain the gr eat privilege they now seek, as the only effectual method of pr eventing its recurrence. To that privilege, they respectfully contend, they are entitled equally with its pr esent possessors . Many are bold enough to deny their title. None can show a better. It rests upon no subtle or abstr use reasoning; but upon grounds simple in their character, intelligible to the plainest c apacity, and such as appeal to the heart, as well as the understanding , of all who compr ehend and duly appreciate the principles of free Government. Among the doctrines inculcated in the great charter handed down to us, as a declaration of the rights pertaining to the good people of Virginia and their posterity, “as the basis and foundation of Government,” we are taught, “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of societ y, they cannot,by any compact,deprive or divest their posterity: namely,the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property , and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. “That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. “That a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish the Government. “That no man,nor set of men,are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services. “That all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have a right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed, or deprived of their property, without their consent,or that of their representative, nor bound by any law, to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.” How do the principles thus proclaimed, accord with the existing regulation of suffrage? A regulation, which, instead of the equality nature ordains, creates an odious distinction betw een members of the same comm unity; robs of all share,in the enactment of the laws,a large portion of the citizens, bound by them, and whose blood and tr easure are pledged to maintain them, and vests in a fav oured class, not in consideration of their public services, but of their pr ivate possessions, the highest of all pr ivileges; one which, as is now in fl agrant proof, if it does not constitute , at least is held [18.223...

Share