Most of the country was never supposed to have the right to vote. Whether they were White, Black, or Brown. And the fact the Printing Presses were largely owned by the Wealthy and the sheer cost involved with campaigning. Effective disqualified the majority of otherwise eligible people from standing for State or Federal office. Specifically because they couldn’t afford to.
The U.S as initially conceived was functionally an Aristocratic Republic. Despite later attempts to paint the Founding Fathers as an American Everyman. They were baring a couple exceptions almost to a T. Colonial Elite. Doctors, Lawyers, Career Politicians with extensive experience in Colonial Legislatures, Southern Planters, Wealthy Merchants, Experienced Militia Officers, and or skilled in highly technical trades.
It likely isn’t an unlikely assumption they believed at least initially. That they believed the levers of Government would never ultimately pass beyond their social class. The poor had their Bill of Rights. Meanwhile the Elite could do the busywork of actually governing. Not to mention at the time when things were written. Political parties largely didn’t exist. No risk of having to clean up after unskilled incompetents who somehow blundered into Office or deal with the predictable fallout of partisan politics. Undoubtedly made the ideas of term limits seem silly.
The Early State Governments reflected that. They often could and did restrict the Franchise often arbitrarily. It wasn’t until the 1820s that the majority of Whites in this country could vote. And that was only after none to settle reminders to the State and Federal Governments. The Poor and barely literate had guns too and wanted their say in things.
We should also note that the founders saw term limits as limits of 2 to 6 years depending on the office. I think when George Washington declared he had enough with the Presidency in 1796, He likely thought that two terms was likely enough for every office. Plus, the founders saw the polling place as a venue to instill term limits.
It is also funny that you should mention the 1820s. That was the second real decade of Henry Clay, the elder statesman of career politicians having served as House speaker from 1810 through 1824 with a break used to negotiate a settlement to the war of 1812.
Fair points. I suppose to rephrase my earlier point. They likely anticipated barring some exceptions that there would be a certain degree of natural turnover. Whether respect for unofficial term limits such as what Washington set as one example, Though it’s 50/50 for me if Washington was just sick of playing referee between some of the other founders who by the end of his terms in office had grown to detest one another, Or if they were banking on people desiring to return to whatever they did before. Clearing the way for other members of their social class.
Plus, the founders saw the polling place as a venue to instill term limits
These are the same guys raised on the story’s of Rome and Greece. Not to mention later examples of Proto-Republics. Such as Venice in the Middle Ages. I doubt they were naive enough to expect the polling place would impose natural term limits. They saw the length of a term as being 2 to 6 years depending on Office as enough. Which is true. But a term limit is different from the length of a term.
Though I suppose you could argue the effort to essentially shut most of the country out of being able to vote for anything beyond the local Mayor. An attempt to increase the likelihood that voting and the polling place would be more likely to result in turnover and imposition of more or less unofficial limits.
It’d be harder for any prospective Congressman to manipulate or bribe classically educated people which would have been the initial voting blocks in the colonies. They would also typically be wealthier than the typical American of the era. Meaning financial bribery would also be less successful. Thereby ensuring the less than stellar are rotated out faster and those who prove exceedingly competent can maintain their seats.
Also, the bribery isn't going to hurt President Trump because he was already super rich before the 2016 election. But wealth doesn't equal honestly because we have thousands of members of congress that have gotten wealthy due to side deals with business leaders and lobbyists. It takes an honest man to realize that you are not to spend 20-30 years in power in Washington. Our current Governor, Kelly Armstrong, served three terms in the US House from North Dakota. We need more people like him.
Good points but you’re missing the key issue of the A17th amendment an how it completely upended states rights and created the corrupt senators we are plagued with still today. It needs to be overturned. See my comment above
Most of the country was never supposed to have the right to vote. Whether they were White, Black, or Brown. And the fact the Printing Presses were largely owned by the Wealthy and the sheer cost involved with campaigning. Effective disqualified the majority of otherwise eligible people from standing for State or Federal office. Specifically because they couldn’t afford to.
The U.S as initially conceived was functionally an Aristocratic Republic. Despite later attempts to paint the Founding Fathers as an American Everyman. They were baring a couple exceptions almost to a T. Colonial Elite. Doctors, Lawyers, Career Politicians with extensive experience in Colonial Legislatures, Southern Planters, Wealthy Merchants, Experienced Militia Officers, and or skilled in highly technical trades.
It likely isn’t an unlikely assumption they believed at least initially. That they believed the levers of Government would never ultimately pass beyond their social class. The poor had their Bill of Rights. Meanwhile the Elite could do the busywork of actually governing. Not to mention at the time when things were written. Political parties largely didn’t exist. No risk of having to clean up after unskilled incompetents who somehow blundered into Office or deal with the predictable fallout of partisan politics. Undoubtedly made the ideas of term limits seem silly.
The Early State Governments reflected that. They often could and did restrict the Franchise often arbitrarily. It wasn’t until the 1820s that the majority of Whites in this country could vote. And that was only after none to settle reminders to the State and Federal Governments. The Poor and barely literate had guns too and wanted their say in things.
We should also note that the founders saw term limits as limits of 2 to 6 years depending on the office. I think when George Washington declared he had enough with the Presidency in 1796, He likely thought that two terms was likely enough for every office. Plus, the founders saw the polling place as a venue to instill term limits.
It is also funny that you should mention the 1820s. That was the second real decade of Henry Clay, the elder statesman of career politicians having served as House speaker from 1810 through 1824 with a break used to negotiate a settlement to the war of 1812.
https://millercenter.org/president/adams/essays/clay-1825-secretary-of-state
Fair points. I suppose to rephrase my earlier point. They likely anticipated barring some exceptions that there would be a certain degree of natural turnover. Whether respect for unofficial term limits such as what Washington set as one example, Though it’s 50/50 for me if Washington was just sick of playing referee between some of the other founders who by the end of his terms in office had grown to detest one another, Or if they were banking on people desiring to return to whatever they did before. Clearing the way for other members of their social class.
These are the same guys raised on the story’s of Rome and Greece. Not to mention later examples of Proto-Republics. Such as Venice in the Middle Ages. I doubt they were naive enough to expect the polling place would impose natural term limits. They saw the length of a term as being 2 to 6 years depending on Office as enough. Which is true. But a term limit is different from the length of a term.
Though I suppose you could argue the effort to essentially shut most of the country out of being able to vote for anything beyond the local Mayor. An attempt to increase the likelihood that voting and the polling place would be more likely to result in turnover and imposition of more or less unofficial limits.
It’d be harder for any prospective Congressman to manipulate or bribe classically educated people which would have been the initial voting blocks in the colonies. They would also typically be wealthier than the typical American of the era. Meaning financial bribery would also be less successful. Thereby ensuring the less than stellar are rotated out faster and those who prove exceedingly competent can maintain their seats.
Good points.
Also, the bribery isn't going to hurt President Trump because he was already super rich before the 2016 election. But wealth doesn't equal honestly because we have thousands of members of congress that have gotten wealthy due to side deals with business leaders and lobbyists. It takes an honest man to realize that you are not to spend 20-30 years in power in Washington. Our current Governor, Kelly Armstrong, served three terms in the US House from North Dakota. We need more people like him.
Good points but you’re missing the key issue of the A17th amendment an how it completely upended states rights and created the corrupt senators we are plagued with still today. It needs to be overturned. See my comment above
"The Poor and barely literate had guns too and wanted their say in things."
...a sticky wicket indeed...
...worthwhile post per usual...
God bless you for your participation...