Several propositions relative to suffrage were made in the Convention of
1796. February 1, Mr. Henderson, delegate from Hawkins County, moved that
the first section in Article III be made to read, “All citizens of this
state, possessing of a freehold in their own right, and all persons who
have done duty in the militia, shall be entitled to vote at any election,
in the county where the freehold lies, or where he resides.”[48] This
motion failed but it is noticed that the suffrage is not based on color.
If the motion had prevailed, it would have disfranchised all freemen,
both white and black, who had not done military service. Mr. Outlaw,
of Jefferson County, moved that “all persons liable by law to militia
duty should be allowed to vote.”[49] If this motion had prevailed, it
would have given all freemen the suffrage with no limitation, because
by Section 26, the freemen were liable to militia duty. The Convention
finally gave the suffrage to all freemen. Article III, Section 1, of
the Constitution of 1796, declared that “all freemen of the age of
twenty-one years and upwards, possessing a freehold in the county where
they may vote, and being inhabitants of this state, and all freemen who
have been inhabitants of any one county within the state for a period of
six months immediately preceding the date of election, shall be entitled
to vote for members of the general assembly, for the county in which they
respectively reside.”[50]
It is worth noticing in this connection that, while the suffrage was
given to all freemen, representation in the legislature was based on the
number of free whites. The constitution declared that “representation
shall be regulated according to numbers, to be apportioned to each
county by law, upon such ratio, as that the number of senators and
representatives ... shall not exceed thirty-nine until the number of
free white persons shall be two hundred thousand.”[51] The convention in
its various discussions used the terms, “freemen,” “freeholders,” “all
citizens,” “all persons,” and “free white persons.” This clearly shows
that the convention was carefully discriminating between these terms
when it used them. Why did the convention use “free white persons” as
the basis of representation? It knew that the term, “freemen,” would
give representation to free negroes. The Constitution of the United
States gave representation to three-fifths of the slaves. The Kentucky
constitution of 1799 stated that, “In all elections for representatives
every free male citizen (negroes, mulattoes and Indians excepted) shall
enjoy the right of election.”[52] It is distinctly shown here that it was
understood that “free male citizen” included “free negro.” Hence, if he
is not to be enfranchised, he must be excepted. Why would this term be so
well understood in Kentucky and not in Tennessee?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account