Live data from Hacker News

September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

nps.gov

1–10 of 87 posts

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#4
post #3

It is too bad the current crop of pols are ignoring all these documents and setting up to steal assets from working and poor people.

I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude. The document was written by people who were actively amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial benefits.

The major benefit of the document was an establishment of a constitutional republic with the ability to modify the constitution when desired by a majority of the republics representatives. That was path breaking at a time when the world was steeped in feudal politics.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#5
A couple interesting references in this article-

- The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering

- The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#6
post #3

It is too bad the current crop of pols are ignoring all these documents and setting up to steal assets from working and poor people.

I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude. The document was written by people who were actively amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial benefits. The major benefit of the document was an establishment of a constitutional republic with the ability to modi…

As far as I would think, each state could set their own requirements for voting, and some ownership of land was also a requirement from what I remember.

So Google suggested "who could vote in 1789” and the top result was from the Regan library.

https://reagan.blogs.archives.gov/2022/03/29/road-to-the-vot...

Reading...

"The most common requirements for voter eligibility was that each prospective voter had to be a white male who owned property of a certain dollar value.

"...by the time of the 1828 Presidential Election, the majority of the land-ownership requirements were eliminated from state laws. The final state to remove the property requirement was North Carolina in 1856, just five years before the Civil War began.

"...Certain states went through cycles where the right to vote was granted, removed, and re-granted to ethnic minorities over the course of decades... In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to all American men regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The right to vote was now Federally defined, but it would take one-hundred years of historical, social, and political developments for the VRA to universally enshrine it."

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#7
post #5

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress.

One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#8
post #5

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress. One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.

I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical issue with the current building though.

1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#10
Spoiler: we could not in fact keep it.

The US "experiment" is touted as a success but it demonstrably is not. Less than 80 years after this utterance, the country descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought. The US was founded on white supremacy and chattel slavery. Chattel slavery may be gone but slavery is alive and well in the form of convict leasing. And of course white supremacy is resurgent.

As someone wh grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s, I rreally wish there was a way for younger people to experience that. There were problems, of course. The Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation loomed large. Homophobia was worse. Racism was worse.

Many, myself included, describe the 1990s as the last good decade. Standard-of-living peaked in 1972 [1] but even in the 1990s, things were still pretty good. Rent was cheap, housing was cheap, food was cheap. There were houses in the 1990s for under $100k that now sell for $2M+. I lived frugally but comfortably on $10k/year as a student, including renting a 2 bedroom apartment.

I cannot adequately express my view of how dire things are now. We are bouldering towards neofeudalism. There is no opposition. Nobody is coming to save us.

[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...

Post reply on HN