A Fire-Eater's view of the future

[trice]

Originally Posted by ole

Believe at least one state (possibly South Carolina) had a property requirement for voting, but nowhere near all of them.

SC was the last state to get rid of the property requirement, and I believe that happened after the 1860 election. 1860 is given as the last year.

I saw a study one time that looked at NC. While the state average there was about 25% slave-owning families, 100% of the members of the state legislature owned slaves.

Tim

[Freddy]

In 1792 New Hampshire became the first state to do away with the owning of property requirement for voting rights for white males and North Carolina became the last state to do so in 1856.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Freddy

In 1792 New Hampshire became the first state to do away with the owning of property requirement for voting rights for white males and North Carolina became the last state to do so in 1856.

The 1868 South Carolina Constitution abolished the property ownership qualification. This was a requirement for readmission of the state government to the Union after the Civil War. Previous to the Civil War, the property qualification in South Carolina dated to the 1790 state constitution.

Tim

[Freddy]

The info I posted came from the ACLU.

[Freddy]

The info I posted came from the ACLU.
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen...s20050304.html

[unionblue]

Freddy,

Thanks for the interesting link. VERY educational.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[trice]

Originally Posted by Freddy

The info I posted came from the ACLU.
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen...s20050304.html

From other information i have seen over the years, I believe the ACLU is incorrect on this historical issue.

South Carolina has had several different constitutions over the years. From the time of independence, they were passed in 1776, 1778, 1790, 1861(Confederate version), 1865 (Reconstruction) 1868 (only one passed by popular vote), 1895.

They also have some unusual laws about amending the Constitution, so that even Amendments passed by popular election have to be approved by a 2/3rds majority in both houses of the state legislature afterwards. From 1895 to date, over 300 amendments have been passed to the state constitution (including one legalizing divorce). As a result, the SC constitution is extremely long and convoluted.

The 1790 Constitution contained a property and/or tax paid requirement. The ACLU notes that the tax requirement was removed, but makes no specific mention of the SC property requirement being removed.

The 1865 constitution imposed by the Reconstruction authorities abolished the property requirement. The 1868 constitution (passed by general election popular vote with almost all white voters abstaining) also abolishes the property requirement.

But by the 1890s SC had a $200 property requirement for negroes to vote (not whites). Senator Tillman of SC mentions this during the debates in Congress over allowing Portuguese and native Hawaiians the vote after we annexed Hawaii.

SC might have abolished the property ownership requirement somewhere prior to 1865 by amendment to the 1790 Constitution or by the 1861 Confederate constitution. I just can't say I've seen any evidence they did, and I have seen references that said they didn't.

AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH:
Thare are good reasons for people to be confused over the issue of what happened in South Carolina with property requirements.

It seems there was a compromise between the two factions in the state (lowlands where the rich planters were and uplands where the poor whites were) in 1808, turned into law for 1810. The property requirement was removed for white male sufferage BUT a landowner could vote in each and every district where he had 50 acres or more of property.

As a result, a landowner was able to vote more than once. A few years later, the state attorney general offered the opinion that you could vote for local officers in every district where you qualified, but really shouldn't vote for a state legislator in more than one. Whether or not wealthy planters agreed with or followed his opinion seems unknown.

In addition, the Governor was elected by the state legislature (not the people) and had no veto power or patronage (i.e., all the political plums were handed out by the legislature). SC was also, IIRR, the last or one of the last states in which the Electoral College vote for President came from the legislature, not the popular vote. The 1790 constitution also had a property requirement for holding office; I am not sure if that remained in force after 1810 or not
Tim

[timewalker]

Wow, Tim. Great information. Thanks.

Kind of makes one understand that South Carolina really was a "different animal."

[trice]

Originally Posted by timewalker

Wow, Tim. Great information. Thanks.

Kind of makes one understand that South Carolina really was a "different animal."

In doing that last bit of research, I also found that South Carolina regarded itself as a unit separate and distinct from the rest of the country. Although the state generally voted for a Democratic president and alongside Democrats in the Congress, they did not affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party. In fact, 1860 was the first time they actually sent an official slate of delgates to the Democratic Party convention -- and even though it was in Charleston, they promptly walked out of it along with other deep South states.

Tim

[ole]

Who was it that said South Carolina was "too small to be a country and too big to be an insane asylum"?

ole