Right to keep and bear arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms 

A woman trains real-life defensive gun use scenarios with live ammunition at a video shooting range in Prague, Czech Republic.

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is a right for people to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. Only a few countries support the idea that their people have a right to keep and bear arms and protect it on a statutory level, and even fewer protect such a right on a constitutional level.

Background

The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law. The term arms as used in the 1600s, the term refers to the process of equipping for war. It is commonly used as a synonym for weapon.

Inclusion of this right in a written constitution is uncommon. In 1875, 17 percent of constitutions included a right to bear arms. Since the early twentieth century, "the proportion has been less than 9 percent and falling". In an article titled "U.S. Gun Rights Truly Are American Exceptionalism," a historical survey and comparative analysis of constitutions dating back to 1789, Tom Ginsburg and colleagues "identified only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) that had ever included an explicit right to bear arms. Almost all of these constitutions have been in Latin America, and most were from the 19th century".

Americas

Colombia

Colombians can not bear arms unless the government allows it. The 1993 gun law states that "only the government can import, export, manufacture, and market firearms, ammunition, explosives and their components, arms making equipment, and all activities thereto pertaining". The state agency in charge of weapons and explosives manufacture, and main supplier to the Colombian Armed Forces is Indumil.

Guatemala

The right to own weapons for personal use, not prohibited by the law, in the place of in habitation, is recognized. There will not be an obligation to hand them over, except in cases ordered by a competent judge.

— Article 38 of Guatemala Constitution

While protecting the right to keep arms, Guatemalan constitution specifies that this right extends only to "weapons not prohibited by law".

Honduras

Although not explicitly protected by the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is conditionally guaranteed by Honduran Statute law.

Every person, in the exercise of their civil rights, may request a maximum of five (5) licences for the possession and carrying of up to five (5) firearms by submitting an application with the following information:

1) Form with personal information and residence;
2) Brand, model, serial number, identification of modification of calibre, if any; as well as any other characteristics of the weapon;
3) Proof of having undertaken a ballistic test;
4) Payment of municipal matriculation and criminal background check; and,
5) Identification documents.

— Article 27 of Decree No. 69-2007, Modifying the Act on the Control of Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials

Mexico

The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms.  Article 10 of Mexican Constitution.

Mexican constitution of 1857 first included right to be armed. In its first version, the right was defined in similar terms as it is in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. A new Mexican constitution of 1917 relativized the right, stating that its utilization must be in line with local police regulations.

Another change was included in 1971 Constitution. Since then, Mexicans have the right to be armed only within their home and further utilization of this right is subject to statutory authorization in Federal law.

United States

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

— Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Generally, where modern constitutions refer to arms at all, the purpose is "to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them". Constitutions which historically guaranteed a right to bear arms are those of Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, Mexico, Nicaragua and the United States of America. Nearly all of the Latin American examples were modeled on that of the United States. At present, out of the world's nearly 200 constitutions, three still include a right to bear arms: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States; of these three, only the last does not include explicit restrictive conditions. Until 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court had never struck down a law aimed at regulating guns. The first ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the second amendment, United States v. Cruikshank in 1876, permitted states to restrict firearm ownership by minorities, ruling the first and second amendment only applied to the federal government, not state governments and laws. This ruling was overturned in 2008, as a result of the case of District of Columbia v. Heller and, two years later, McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states could not restrict the ownership of handguns for self-defense.

Europe

Czech Republic

(1) Everyone has the right to life. Human life is worthy of protection even before birth.
(2) Nobody may be deprived of her life.
(3) The death penalty is prohibited.
(4) Deprivation of life is not inflicted in contravention of this Article if it occurs in connection with conduct which is not criminal under the law. The right to defend own life or life of another person also with arms is guaranteed under conditions set out in the law.

— Proposal of amendment of Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms lodged by 35 Senators on 24 September 2019 (Text in italics is preexisting, the last sentence in subsection 4 is newly proposed in the Amendment.)

Historically, the Czech lands were at the forefront of the spreading of civilian firearms ownership. In the 1420s and 1430s, firearms became indispensable tools for the mostly peasant Hussite armies, whose amateur combatants, including women, fended off a series of invasions of professional crusader armies of well-armored warriors with cold weapons. Throughout and after the Hussite wars, firearms design underwent fast development and their possession by civilians became a matter of course. First firearms regulation was enacted in 1517 as a part of general accord between the nobles and burghers and later in 1524 as a standalone Enactment on Firearms (zřízení o ručnicích). The 1517 law explicitly stated that "all people of all standing have the right to keep firearms at home" while at the same time enacting a universal carry ban. The 1524 enactment set out a process of issuing of permits for carrying of firearms and detailed enforcement and punishment for carrying without such a permit. Carrying later became again permitless until 1852, when Imperial Regulation No. 223 again introduced carry permits.

Since inception through the Hussite revolution, the right to keep firearms endured for over half-millennia until the Nazi gun ban during the German occupation in the 20th century. Firearms possession later became subject to government permission during the communist dictatorship with only those deemed loyal to the communist party being able to be armed. After return of liberty, the Czech Republic instated shall issue permitting process, under which all residents can keep and bear arms subject to fulfillment of regulatory conditions.

In the Czech Republic, every resident that meets conditions laid down in Act No. 119/2002 Coll. has the right to have firearms license issued and can then obtain a firearm. Holders of D (exercise of profession) and E (self-defense) licenses, which are also shall-issue, can carry up to two concealed firearms for protection. The right to be armed is statutorily protected, however it is not listed in the constitution.

A proposal to have right to keep and bear arms included in the constitution was entered in the Czech Parliament in December 2016. The proposal was approved by vote of 139 to 9 on 28 June 2017 by the Chamber of Deputies. It later failed to reach necessary support in Senate, where only 28 out of 59 Senators present supported it (constitutional majority being 36 votes ). A new proposal was entered by 35 Senators in September 2019.

Switzerland

The Swiss have a statutory right to bear arms under Article 3 of the 1997 Weapons Act. Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his obligation. Until December 2009, these men were required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes as long as they were enrolled in the armed forces. Since January 2010, they have had the option of depositing their personal firearm at a government arsenal. Until September 2007, soldiers received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home; after 2007 only about 2,000 specialist troops are allowed to keep the ammunition at home.

In a referendum in February 2011, voters rejected a citizens' initiative that would have obliged members of the armed services to store their rifles and pistols on military compounds and required that privately owned firearms be registered.

United Kingdom

the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

— Bill of Rights 1689

The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom. While citizens may possess certain firearms on an appropriate licence, All handguns, automatic, and centerfire semi-automatic weapons are illegal to possess without special provisons.

The English Bill of Rights 1689 allowed:

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

The first serious control on firearms was established with the passing of the Firearms Act 1920.

Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom to carry a knife (with the exception of non-locking folding knives with a cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any "offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The cutting edge of a knife is separate to the blade length. The only manner in which an individual can carry arms is on private property or any property which the public does not have a lawful right of access as the law only creates the offence when it occurs in public e.g. a person's own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have no access, etc. Furthermore, Section 141 Criminal Justice Act 1988 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot technically be owned - even on private property - by way of making it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to another person.

Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or ordinary item intended or adapted as an offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".

Other

Sharia law

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms. However, in times of civil strife or internal violence, this right can be temporarily suspended to keep peace and prevent harm, as mentioned by Imam ash-Shatibi in his works on Maqasid ash-Shari'ah (The Intents and Purposes of Shari'ah) Citizens not practicing Islam are prohibited from bearing arms and are required to be protected by the military, the state for which they pay the jizyah. In exchange they do not need to pay the zakat.

Yemen

The Law Regulating Carrying Firearms, Ammunition & their Trade states that:

The citizens of the Republic shall have the right to hold the necessary rifles, machine guns, revolvers, and hunting rifles for their personal use with an amount of ammunition for the purpose of legitimate defense.

Firearms are both easily and legally accessible.

Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms

Legal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are usually put in place by legislators because they believe that they will reduce gun related violence. Their actions are frequently the result of political pressure for such controls. The Brady, Snowdrop Campaigns, and the Million Mom March are examples of campaigns calling for tighter restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Accident statistics are hard to obtain, but much data is available on the issue of gun ownership and gun related deaths. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) has made comparisons between countries with different levels of gun ownership and investigated the correlation between gun ownership levels and gun homicides, and between gun ownership levels and gun suicides. A strong correlation is seen in both.

During the 1989 and 1992 International Crime Surveys, data on gun ownership in eighteen countries have been collected on which WHO data on suicide and homicide committed with guns and other means are also available. The results presented in a previous paper based on the fourteen countries surveyed during the first ICS and on rank correlations (Spearman's rho), suggested that gun ownership may increase suicides and homicides using firearms, while it may not reduce suicides and homicides with other means. In the present analysis, four additional countries covered by the 1992 ICS only have been included, and Pearson's correlation coefficients r have been used. The results confirm those presented in the previous study.

UNICRI also investigated the relationship between gun ownership levels and other forms of homicide or suicide to determine whether high gun ownership added to or merely displaced other forms of homicide or suicide. They reported that "widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide." Speculating on possible causes the researchers concluded that "all we know is that guns do not reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings. Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect guns to play a—fatal—role in this".

The research reporter found that guns were the major cause of homicides in 3 of the 14 countries it studied; Northern Ireland, Italy, and the United States. Although the data seem to indicate that reducing the availability of one significant type of arms—firearms—leads to reductions both in gun crimes and gun suicides and in overall crimes and overall suicides, the author did caution that "reducing the number of guns in the hands of the private citizen may become a hopeless task beyond a certain point", citing the American example.

In contrast to the 1993 study however, a more recent study by UNICRI researchers from 2001 examined the link between household gun ownership and overall homicide, overall suicide, as well as gun homicide and gun suicide rates amongst 21 countries. Significant correlations between household gun ownership and rates of gun suicides for both genders, and gun homicide rates involving female victims were found. There were no significant correlations detected for total homicide and suicide rates, as well as gun homicide rates involving male victims. Public health critic and gun rights proponent Miguel Faria writing in Surgical Neurology International contends that to keep and bear arms have not only constitutional protection but also that firearms have beneficial aspects that have been ignored by the public health establishment in which he played a part; that guns are beneficial in personal self-defense, collective defense, as well as in protecting life and property.

United States Constitution and worldwide influence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution_and_worldwide_influence

The United States Constitution has had influence internationally on later constitutions and legal thinking. Its influence appears in similarities of phrasing and borrowed passages in other constitutions, as well as in the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and recognition of individual rights. The United American experience of amendments and judicial review motivated constitutionalism at times when they were considering the possibilities for their nation's future. Examples include Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, his contemporary and ally Benito Juárez of Mexico, and the second generation of 19th-century constitutional nationalists, José Rizal of the Philippines and Sun Yat-sen of China. However, democratizing countries often chose more centralized British or French models of government, particularly the Westminster system. Since the latter half of the 20th century, the influence of the United States Constitution may be waning as other countries have revised their constitutions with new influences.

National constitutions

The historian William H. McNeill argued that the United States saw itself as "one of a family of peoples and nations" making a history apart from the European civilization of their colonization.

The United States Constitution is an expression of Americans diverging from colonial rule, according to this viewpoint. Its effect is reflected in the ideals of limiting the rulers of a state apart and above sitting law-givers in a parliament. The concepts of governance influencing others internationally are not only found among similarities in phrasing and entire passages from the U.S. Constitution. They are in the principles of the rule of law and recognition of individual rights. The American experience of fundamental law with amendments and judicial review has motivated foreign constitutionalists to reconsider possibilities for their own future. This view informed Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, his contemporary and ally Benito Juarez of Mexico, and the second generation of 19th century constitutional nationalists, José Rizal of the Philippines and Sun Yat-sen of China. The Australian Constitution which came into force in 1901 was strongly influenced by the US Constitution, while at the same time preserving Westminster traditions and the British monarchy. It adopted a federal system similar to the US, with a senate that represented the states. It also adopted the concepts of a formal separation of power and judicial review.

Generally the influence of the Constitution appears in trans-national history of ideas, foreign translations, and exchanges between Americans and their counterparts from the beginning with smuggled translations into Hispanic America until today with conferences among national legislators. Innovations include constitutional conventions, written constitutions, ratification and amendment procedures. There are common provisions for presidential executives, federalism and judicial review.

George Athan Billias, studying the Constitution and related documents, describes six waves of influence:

1. From 1776 to 1811, after the American Revolution began, it influenced northwestern Europe and its colonial connections.
2. 1811–1848, after the decline of Napoleon's reputation, it was referenced by Latin American, Caribbean, and European nationalists.
3. 1898–1918, after the Spanish–American War, nationalist movements borrowed from the U.S. Constitution in Asia and Latin America.
4. 1918–1945, after World War I, its influence spread with movements for decolonization of Africa, Mid-east and Asia.
5. 1945–1974, after World War II, independence movements consulted it.
6. 1974–1989, after United Nations expansion, once nondemocratic regimes, including European ones, transitioned towards constitutional democracies incorporating elements of the U.S. Constitution.

Over its history, the influence of American constitutionalism has waxed and waned. Democratizing countries often chose the more centralized, consolidated British or French models. Many countries that were once part of the British Empire favored the British Westminster parliamentary system. Internationally it appears that those of Confucian and Islamic cultures do not readily adopt some of its premises. Nevertheless, "the influence of American constitutionalism abroad was profound in the past and remains a remarkable contribution to humankind's search for freedom under a system of laws."

According to a 2012 study published in the New York University Law Review, however, the influence of the U.S. Constitution may be waning. The study examined more than 700 federal constitutions from nearly 200 countries. "Rather than leading the way for global constitutionalism, the U.S. Constitution appears instead to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere," the researchers write. "The idea of adopting a constitution may still trace its inspiration to the United States, but the manner in which constitutions are written increasingly does not." In particular, the study found that the U.S. Constitution guarantees relatively few rights compared to the constitutions of other countries and contains less than half (26 of 60) of the provisions listed in the average bill of rights. It is also one of the few in the world today that still features the right to keep and bear arms; the only others are the constitutions of Guatemala and Mexico. Overall, the research suggests that the Constitution of Canada, revised in 1982, is now a leading international model rather than that of the United States.

Translations

The Federal Judicial Center links to translations of the U.S. Constitution in nine languages. The site offers other materials in eighteen languages besides English, such as Dari, Indonesian, Malay, Serb, and Turkish. The Center's statutory mission includes working with judges and court officials of the U.S. and other nations to improve the administration of justice.

The Constitution Finder of the University of Richmond has links to translations into ten different languages. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania lists a translation into Armenian.

Professor James Chen has annotated the Spanish translation prepared by the U.S. State Department. His notes focus on the problems and nuances of this translation. Elizabeth Claire has rewritten the Constitution into simplified English. Some of the many translations of the Constitution are listed below.

• Arabic
• Chinese
• Dutch
• Finnish
• French
• Georgian
• German
• Hebrew
• Hungarian
• Italian
• Japanese
• Korean
• Latin
• Portuguese
• Russian
• Slovak
• Spanish
• Swedish
• Thai
• Ukrainian
• Vietnamese

The Bill of Rights

The U.S. State Department lists translations of the Bill of Rights into fifty-one languages:

Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azeri, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Burmese, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Dutch, French, Georgian, German, Greek, Haitian Creole, Hausa, Hindi, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Kazakh, Khmer, Korean, Kurdish, Malay, Nepali, Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese-Brazilian, Portuguese-Continental, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Thai, Turkish, Uighur, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Yoruba.

A second site links to the following translations: Arabic, Armenian, Chinese (simplified), French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish. The Bill of Rights has been translated into Hawaiian.

Commemorative stamps

150th Anniversary 2nd Spanish Republic, 1937

In 1937 the U.S. Post Office released a commemorative stamp to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The engraving shown on this issue is after an 1856 painting by Junius Brutus Stearns of Washington and shows delegates signing the Constitution at the 1787 Convention. George Washington is on dais with an open document in hand; James Madison sits at the table, taking his famous notes on the convention.

One commemorative of the 19th Amendment (permitting women the right to vote) was celebrated in a commemorative in 1950 and again in 1970. The woman is voting in a curtained mechanical voting booth. She chooses levers to punch or mark her votes on a paper roll. The Model T has a male driver with a banner "Votes for women" on the car, women riders and marchers as though in a parade.

The Second Polish Republic issued a commemorative of the U.S. and Polish Constitutions in 1938 under the government of Prime Minister, Major General Składkowski The stamp features George Washington in military regalia, holding a 48-star American flag and a drawn sword. Thomas Paine holds a book on a rod, and Kosciuszko poses with a cross and saber. The next scene shows a line of infantry flying a Polish flag. The right panel shows the Statue of Liberty imposed in front of the New York 1930s skyline.

In 1937 the Second Spanish Republic commemorated the 150th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, under the government of Prime Minister Juan Negrín of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE). The Statue of Liberty is the central focus, flanked by flags of Spain and the United States. The Spanish Republic Flag of red, yellow and purple, as battle flag or civil ensign, lacks the coat of arms.

Rights of Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man 

Rights of Man

Title page from the first edition
Author	Thomas Paine
Country	Britain
Language	English
Subject	The French Revolution
Publication date	1791

Rights of Man (1791), a book by Thomas Paine, including 31 articles, posits that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard the natural rights of its people. Using these points as a base it defends the French Revolution against Edmund Burke's attack in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

It was published in two parts in March 1791 and February 1792.

Background

Paine was a very strong supporter of the French Revolution that began in 1789; he visited France the following year. Many English thinkers supported it, including Richard Price, who initiated the Revolution Controversy with his sermon and pamphlet drawing favourable parallels between the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the French Revolution. Conservative intellectual Edmund Burke responded with a counter-revolutionary attack entitled Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), which strongly appealed to the landed class and sold 30,000 copies. Paine's Rights of Man was printed by Joseph Johnson for publication on 21 February 1791, then withdrawn for fear of prosecution. J. S. Jordan stepped in and published it on 16 March. The 90,000-word book appeared on 13 March, three weeks later than scheduled. It sold as many as one million copies and was "eagerly read by reformers, Protestant dissenters, democrats, London craftsman, and the skilled factory-hands of the new industrial north".

Arguments

Paine argues that the interests of the monarch and his people are united, and insists that the French Revolution should be understood as one which attacks the despotic principles of the French monarchy, not the king himself, and he takes the Bastille, the main prison in Paris, to symbolise the despotism that had been overthrown.

Human rights originate in Nature; thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

... It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect—that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few ... They ... consequently are instruments of injustice ... The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

— Rights of Man, I, London, 1795, pp. 125-126, Rights of Man, II, London, 1795, p. 13.

Government's sole purpose is safeguarding the individual and his/her inherent, inalienable rights; each societal institution that does not benefit the nation is illegitimate—especially monarchy and aristocracy. The book's acumen derives from the Age of Enlightenment and has been linked to the Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke (even though Paine himself claimed to have never read this work).

The fuller development of this position seems to have been worked out one night in France after an evening spent with Thomas Jefferson, and possibly Lafayette, discussing a pamphlet by the Philadelphia conservative James Wilson on the proposed federal constitution.

Reformation of the English government

Rights of Man concludes in proposing practical reformations of English government such as a written constitution composed by a national assembly, in the American mould; the elimination of aristocratic titles, because democracy is incompatible with primogeniture, which leads to the despotism of the family; a national budget without allotted military and war expenses; lower taxes for the poor, and subsidised education for them; and a progressive income tax weighted against wealthy estates to prevent the re-emergence of a hereditary aristocracy.

Aristocracy

Principally, Rights of Man opposes the idea of hereditary government—the belief that dictatorial government is necessary, because of man's corrupt, essential nature. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) Edmund Burke says that true social stability arises if the nation's poor majority are governed by a minority of wealthy aristocrats, and that lawful inheritance of power (wealth, religious, governing) ensured the propriety of political power being the exclusive domain of the nation's élite social class—the nobility.

Rights of Man denounces Burke's assertion of the nobility's inherent hereditary wisdom; countering the implication that a nation has not a right to form a Government for governing itself. Paine refutes Burke's definition of Government as "a contrivance of human wisdom". Instead, Paine argues that Government is a contrivance of man, and it follows that hereditary succession and hereditary rights to govern cannot compose a Government—because the wisdom to govern cannot be inherited.

Heredity

Edmund Burke's counter-revolutionary Reflections on the French Revolution delineates the legitimacy of aristocratic government to the 1688 Parliamentary resolution declaring William and Mary of Orange—and their heirs—to be the true rulers of England. Paine puts forward two arguments against this view. Firstly, he argues that "Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it." Secondly, Paine counters that the institution of monarchy should not be historically traced from 1688, but from 1066, when William of Normandy forcibly imposed his Norman rule upon Englishmen.

Thomas Paine's intellectual influence is perceptible in the two great political revolutions of the eighteenth century. He dedicated Rights of Man to George Washington and to the Marquis de Lafayette, acknowledging the importance of the American and the French revolutions in his formulating the principles of modern democratic governance.

Thus, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen) can be encapsulated so: (1) Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility; (2) The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression; and (3) The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; neither can any individual, nor any body of men, be entitled to any authority, which is not expressly derived from it.

These capsulations are akin to the self-evident truths concept that the U.S. Declaration of Independence expresses.

Welfare

In the closing chapters of Rights of Man, Paine addresses the condition of the poor and outlines a detailed social welfare proposal predicated upon the redirection of government expenditures. From the onset, Paine asserts all citizens have an inherent claim to welfare. Paine declares welfare is not charity, but an irrevocable right. Paine's understanding of welfare seemingly follows his idea of political government. He notes, "Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured". In congruence with his previous works, Paine emphasizes the compatibility between individual rights and societal wellbeing. He fervently contends that crippling poverty undermines the rights of an individual, and consequently the legitimacy of government. Not surprisingly then, Paine staunchly opposed and criticizes the English Poor Laws in place at the time, claiming the laws are highly ineffective and primitive in nature. Paine critiques the societal conditions promulgated by the Poor Laws saying, "When in countries that are called civilized, we see age going to the workhouse and youth to the gallows, something must be wrong with the system of government". He argues for their complete abolition, and in their place the enactment of a welfare program that assists the young, old, and struggling individuals. Paine's welfare proposal is pillared by education and tax reform. Paine contends the poor population consists mostly of children and the elderly, who are unable to participate in the workforce. In addition to the elderly and children, Paine also concedes that there are still some others rendered poor from the economic burden of tax and children. In accordance with his belief that charity as a natural right, Paine presumes only republican or democratic regimes can effectively carry out successful welfare programs. Though Paine does not directly condone or promote up-rise against the British monarchy, and utilizes rather subdued rhetoric in comparison to his other controversial works, revolutionary currents run beneath the surface of the text.

An implication that arises from Paine's social welfare reformation is cost. Paine observes, at the time of his writing, England's rough population to be about 7 million people. He also supposes that around one-fifth of the population is poor. The number of poor then, according to Paine's estimations, would total around 1,400,000 people, in need of support. Paine contended the remedy for financing such a large welfare endeavor would be to cut military expenditures of the state and redirect the funds towards the people of the state. Paine argued that since the age of revolution rendered a new era of peace, the government no longer need devote so many resources toward monarchical wars. Instead, Paine suggests, the surplus of tax revenue could be reintegrated back into society with the formation of a welfare program. He also estimates that near £4 million, out of £17 million in total tax revenues from customs and excise duties, could be salvaged from the government's expenditure and redirected and redistributed to the people of the nation. Paine questions, "Is it, then, better that the lives of one hundred and forty thousand aged persons be rendered comfortable, or that a million a year of public money be expended on any one individual, and him often of the most worthless or insignificant character?" Paine concludes that by his model £3,640,000 will be remitted to the poor.

Youth and education

Education is a foundational cornerstone of Paine's welfare plan. Paine claims, "A nation under a well-regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed". Paine largely focuses on educating the youth population. He contends that, educating children will ultimately compel the betterment of society holistically. Paine insists a proactive social welfare system that educates the country's youth, will act as a preventive measure, and engender greater knowledge amongst the population. He explains that poor children and young people are typically deprived of equal access to education. Poor children coming from poor families are often forced to seek apprenticeships and work, and are thus subsequently robbed of the ability to pursue education. Poverty then, becomes cyclical in nature and undoubtedly increases with time. Lack of education amongst the young population, Paine asserts, will also lead to increased violence and crime. To combat this problem, Paine proposes a remission of taxes to poor families; £4 a year for every child under the age of 14, granting the parents of the children send them to school. For 630,000 children, Paine estimates the cost to be £2,520,000. Paine states, "By adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and the number of poor will hereafter become less, because their abilities, by the aid of education, will be greater". In the same vein, Paine also suggest women should receive maternity benefits immediately after the birth of a child.

Elderly

Paramount to Paine's welfare plan, is care of the elderly population. Paine divides age into two classes; the first he calls "the approach of age" class and the second "old age" class. Those classified as being in the "approach of age" group are over fifty years of age yet under 60 years of age, while "old age" commences at the age of sixty years old. Paine notes that though individuals in the approach of age class retain their mental faculties, the decline of their physical health limits their ability to work, which consequently affects their earnings. Those of old age, Paine declares, are fully incapable of laborious work and are ultimately driven to work themselves to death in current society. Paine resolves to pay approach of age persons the sum of £6 per annum out of the surplus taxes, and to pay old age persons £10 per annum. Figuring there will be 70,000 persons in the approach of age class and 70,000 persons in the old age class, Paine estimates the expense to be 1,120,000.

Proposal conditions

In tandem with redirecting government expenditures, Paine suggests the development of what some may call a "workhouse", or place of employment for poor people. Paine's describes the workhouse as being a building, or buildings, with the capability of holding a minimum of 6,000 people. In these buildings, operating businesses would indiscriminately accept applications, so that every city citizen could find employment. In order for Paine's plan to be carried out effectively, he cites some conditions that must be met. He resolves that each person seeking employment from these workhouses must stay in the program for a minimum of three months; however, during their residency all employees shall receive wholesome meals, warm lodgings, receive a proportional stipend for the work they've completed, and may work as long or as little as they deem appropriate. The asylum, Paine declares, would assist any persons in temporary distress and would serve around 24,000 people a year. To finance the development of this project, Paine suggest using the revenue from the state's coal tax. Paine states that at the time he is writing, the tax revenue is used to support the Duke of Richmond. Paine ultimately finds this particular deplorable, and calls for the reallocation of coal tax funds back to the people.

Paine concludes his section on welfare by listing the eight central tenets of his welfare proposal, or what he calls the "enumerating particulars", which are as follows:

1. Abolish 2 million poor rates.
2. Provision for 252,000 poor families.
3. Education for 1,030,000 children.
4. Comfortable provision for 140,000 aged persons.
5. Donation of 20 shillings each for 50,000 births.
6. Donation of 20 shillings each for 20,000 marriages.
7. Allowance of £20,000 for the funeral expenses of deceased travelers far from home.
8. Employment at all times for the casual poor in cities.

Analysis and public impact

According to Mark Philp, "In many respects Rights of Man is a disordered mix of narrative, principled argument, and rhetorical appeal—betraying the composite materials Paine used and the speed with which it was composed."

It was quickly reprinted and widely circulated, with copies being read aloud in inns and coffee houses, so that by May some 50,000 copies were said to be in circulation. Of the 300 or more pamphlets which the revolution controversy spawned, Rights of Man was the first to seriously damage Burke's case and to restore credit to the French both in Britain and America.

The publication of Rights of Man caused a furore in England; Paine was tried in absentia, and convicted of seditious libel against the Crown, but was unavailable for hanging, being in France and never returning to England. (Sir Archibald Macdonald, 1st Baronet served as the prosecutor.)

Thomas Paine was not the only advocate of the rights of man or the only author of a work titled Rights of Man. The working-class radical, Thomas Spence, is among the first, in England, to use the phrase as a title. His 1775 lecture, usually titled The Rights of Man, and his later The Rights of Infants, offer a proto-geoist take on political philosophy mirroring Paine's work Agrarian Justice. Paine's acquaintance Mary Wollstonecraft, whom he met via their common publisher, wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Men as one of the very first responses to Burke's attack on Richard Price. Her work was in print in December 1790, and was well reviewed. She extended the arguments in the book for which she is best remembered, the 1792 A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

Common Sense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense 

Common Sense

Pamphlet's original cover
Author	Thomas Paine
Country	United States
Language	English
Published	January 10, 1776
Pages	49

Designations
Pennsylvania Historical Marker
Official name	"Common Sense"
Type	City
Criteria	American Revolution Government & Politics Government & Politics 18th Century Military Professions & Vocations Publishing & Journalism
Designated	1993
Location	SE corner of S 3rd St. & Thomas Paine Place (Chancellor St), Philadelphia 39.94041°N 75.14645°W
Marker Text	At his print shop here, Robert Bell published the first edition of Thomas Paine's revolutionary pamphlet in January 1776. Arguing for a republican form of government under a written constitution, it played a key role in rallying American support for independence.

Common Sense is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775–1776 advocating independence from Great Britain to people in the Thirteen Colonies. Writing in clear and persuasive prose, Paine marshaled moral and political arguments to encourage common people in the Colonies to fight for egalitarian government. It was published anonymously on January 10, 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution, and became an immediate sensation.

It was sold and distributed widely and read aloud at taverns and meeting places. In proportion to the population of the colonies at that time (2.5 million), it had the largest sale and circulation of any book published in American history. As of 2006, it remains the all-time best-selling American title and is still in print today.

Common Sense made public a persuasive and impassioned case for independence, which had not yet been given serious intellectual consideration. Paine connected independence with common dissenting Protestant beliefs as a means to present a distinctly American political identity and structured Common Sense as if it were a sermon. Historian Gordon S. Wood described Common Sense as "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era."

The text was translated into French by Antoine Gilbert Griffet de Labaume in 1790.

Publication

Paine arrived in the American colonies in November 1774, shortly before the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Though the colonies and Great Britain had commenced hostilities against one another, the thought of independence was not initially entertained. Writing of his early experiences in the colonies in 1778, Paine "found the disposition of the people such, that they might have been led by a thread and governed by a reed. Their attachment to Britain was obstinate, and it was, at that time, a kind of treason to speak against it. Their ideas of grievance operated without resentment, and their single object was reconciliation." Paine quickly engrained himself in the Philadelphia newspaper business, and began writing Common Sense in late 1775 under the working title of Plain Truth. Though it began as a series of letters to be published in various Philadelphia papers, it grew too long and unwieldy to publish as letters, leading Paine to select the pamphlet form.

Benjamin Rush recommended the publisher Robert Bell, promising Paine that although other printers might balk at the content of the pamphlet, Bell would not hesitate or delay its printing. Bell zealously promoted the pamphlet in Philadelphia's papers, and demand grew so high as to require a second printing. Paine, overjoyed with its success, endeavored to collect his share of the profits and donate them to purchase mittens for General Montgomery's troops, then encamped in frigid Quebec. However, when Paine's chosen intermediaries audited Bell's accounts, they found that the pamphlet actually had made zero profits. Incensed, Paine ordered Bell not to proceed on a second edition, as he had planned several appendices to add to Common Sense. Bell ignored that and began advertising a "new edition".

While Bell believed that the advertisement would convince Paine to retain his services, it had the opposite effect. Paine secured the assistance of the Bradford brothers, publishers of the Pennsylvania Evening Post, and released his new edition, featuring several appendices and additional writings. Bell began working on a second edition. This set off a month-long public debate between Bell and the still-anonymous Paine, conducted within the pages and advertisements of the Pennsylvania Evening Post, with each party charging the other with duplicity and fraud. Paine and Bell published several more editions through the end of their public squabble.

The publicity generated by the initial success and compounded by the publishing disagreements propelled the pamphlet to incredible sales and circulation. Common Sense sold almost 100,000 copies in 1776, and according to Paine, 120,000 copies were sold in the first three months. One biographer estimates that 500,000 copies sold in the first year (in both America and Europe, predominantly France and Britain), and another writes that Paine's pamphlet went through 25 published editions in the first year alone. However, Trish Loughran disputes the figures as implausible because of the literate population at the time and estimated the far upper limit as 75,000 copies.

Aside from the printed pamphlet itself, there were many handwritten summaries and whole copies circulated. Paine also granted publishing rights to nearly every imprint which requested them, including several international editions. It was immensely popular in France, where it was published without its diatribes against monarchy. At least one newspaper printed the entire pamphlet: the Connecticut Courant in its issue of February 19, 1776. Writing in 1956, Richard Gimbel estimated, in terms of circulation and impact, that an "equivalent sale today, based on the present population of the United States, would be more than six-and-one-half million copies within the short space of three months".

For nearly three months, Paine managed to maintain his anonymity, even during Bell's potent newspaper polemics. His name did not become officially connected with the independence controversy until March 30, 1776. Paine never recouped the profits that he felt were to him from Bell's first edition. Ultimately, he lost money on the Bradford printing as well, and because he decided to repudiate his copyright, he never profited from Common Sense.

Sections

The first and subsequent editions divided the pamphlet into four sections.

I. Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, With Concise Remarks on the English Constitution

In his first section, Paine related common Enlightenment theories of the state of nature to establish a foundation for republican government. Paine began the section by making a distinction between society and government and argues that government is a "necessary evil." He illustrates the power of society to create and maintain happiness in man through the example of a few isolated people who find it easier to live together rather than apart, thus creating society. As society continues to grow, a government becomes necessary to prevent the natural evil Paine saw in man.

To promote civil society through laws and account for the impossibility of all people meeting centrally to make laws, representation and elections become necessary. As that model was clearly intended to mirror the situation of the colonists at the time of publication, Paine went on to consider the English constitution.

Paine found two tyrannies in the English constitution: monarchical and aristocratic tyranny in the king and peers, who rule by heredity and contribute nothing to the people. Paine criticized the English constitution by examining the relationship between the king, the peers, and the commons.

II. Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession

The second section considers monarchy first from a biblical perspective and then from a historical perspective. He begins by arguing that since all men are equal at creation, the distinction between kings and subjects is a false one. Paine then quotes a sequence of biblical passages to refute the divine right of Kings. After citing Matthew 22:21, he highlights Gideon’s refusal to heed the people’s call to rule, citing Judges 8:22. He then reproduces the majority of 1 Samuel 8 (wherein Samuel relays God’s objections to the people’s demand for a king) and concludes: “the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government...”

Paine then examines some of the problems that kings and monarchies have caused in the past and concludes:

In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

— Thomas Paine

Paine also attacks one type of "mixed state," the constitutional monarchy promoted by John Locke, in which the powers of government are separated between a Parliament or Congress, which makes the laws, and a monarch, who executes them. The constitutional monarchy, according to Locke, would limit the powers of the king sufficiently to ensure that the realm would remain lawful rather than easily becoming tyrannical. According to Paine, however, such limits are insufficient. In the mixed state, power tends to concentrate into the hands of the monarch, eventually permitting him to transcend any limitations placed upon him. Paine questions why the supporters of the mixed state, since they concede that the power of the monarch is dangerous, wish to include a monarch in their scheme of government in the first place.

III. Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs

Constitution of the United States as proposed by Thomas Paine in Common Sense

In the third section, Paine examines the hostilities between England and the American colonies and argues that the best course of action is independence. Paine proposes a Continental Charter (or Charter of the United Colonies) that would be an American Magna Carta. Paine writes that a Continental Charter "should come from some intermediate body between the Congress and the people" and outlines a Continental Conference that could draft a Continental Charter. Each colony would hold elections for five representatives, who would be accompanied by two members of the assembly of colonies, for a total of seven representatives from each colony in the Continental Conference. The Conference would then meet and draft a Continental Charter that would secure "freedom and property to all men, and… the free exercise of religion". The Continental Charter would also outline a new national government, which Paine thought would take the form of a Congress.

Paine suggested that a congress may be created in the following way: each colony should be divided in districts, and each district would "send a proper number of delegates to Congress." Paine thought that each colony should send at least 30 delegates to Congress and that the total number of delegates in Congress should be at least 390. The Congress would meet annually and elect a president. Each colony would be put into a lottery; the president would be elected, by the whole congress, from the delegation of the colony that was selected in the lottery. After a colony was selected, it would be removed from subsequent lotteries until all of the colonies had been selected, at which point the lottery would start anew. Electing a president or passing a law would require three-fifths of the congress.

IV. On the Present Ability of America, With Some Miscellaneous Reflections

The fourth section of the pamphlet includes Paine's optimistic view of America's military potential at the time of the revolution. For example, he spends pages describing how colonial shipyards, by using the large amounts of lumber available in the country, could quickly create a navy that could rival the Royal Navy.

Impact

Heavy advertisement by both Bell and Paine and the immense publicity created by their publishing quarrel made Common Sense an immediate sensation not only in Philadelphia but also across the Thirteen Colonies. Early "reviewers" (mainly letter excerpts published anonymously in colonial newspapers) touted the clear and rational case for independence put forth by Paine. One Marylander wrote to the Pennsylvania Evening Post on February 6, 1776, that "if you know the author of COMMON SENSE, tell him he has done wonders and worked miracles. His stile [sic] is plain and nervous; his facts are true; his reasoning, just and conclusive".  The author went on to claim that the pamphlet was highly persuasive in swaying people towards independence. The mass appeal, one later reviewer noted, was caused by Paine's dramatic calls for popular support of revolution, "giv[ing] liberty to every individual to contribute materials for that great building, the grand charter of American Liberty". Paine's vision of a radical democracy, unlike the checked and balanced nation later favored by conservatives like John Adams, was highly attractive to the popular audience which read and reread Common Sense. In the months leading up to the Declaration of Independence, many more reviewers noted that the two main themes (direct and passionate style and calls for individual empowerment) were decisive in swaying the Colonists from reconciliation to rebellion. The pamphlet was also highly successful because of a brilliant marketing tactic planned by Paine. He and Bell timed the first edition to be published at around the same time as a proclamation on the colonies by King George III, hoping to contrast the strong, monarchical message with the heavily anti-monarchical Common Sense. Luckily, the speech and the first advertisement of the pamphlet appeared on the same day within the pages of the Pennsylvania Evening Post.

While Paine focused his style and address towards the common people, the arguments he made touched on prescient debates of morals, government, and the mechanisms of democracy. That gave Common Sense a "second life" in the very public call-and-response nature of newspaper debates made by intellectual men of letters throughout Philadelphia. Paine's formulation of "war for an idea" led to, as Eric Foner describes it, "a torrent of letters, pamphlets, and broadsides on independence and the meaning of republican government... attacking or defending, or extending and refining Paine's ideas".

John Adams, who would succeed George Washington to become the new nation's second president, in his Thoughts on Government wrote that Paine's ideal sketched in Common Sense was "so democratical, without any restraint or even an attempt at any equilibrium or counter poise, that it must produce confusion and every evil work." Others, such as the writer calling himself "Cato," denounced Paine as dangerous and his ideas as violent. Paine was also an active and willing participant in what would become essentially a six-month publicity tour for independence. Writing as "The Forester," he responded to Cato and other critics in the pages of Philadelphian papers with passion and declared again in sweeping language that their conflict was not only with Great Britain but also with the tyranny inevitably resulting from monarchical rule.

Later scholars have assessed the influence of Common Sense in several ways. Some, like A. Owen Aldridge, emphasize that Common Sense could hardly be said to embody a particular ideology, and that "even Paine himself may not have been cognizant of the ultimate source of many of his concepts." They make the point that much of the pamphlet's value came as a result of the context in which it was published. Eric Foner wrote that the pamphlet touched a radical populace at the height of their radicalism, which culminated in Pennsylvania with a new constitution aligned along Paine's principles. Many have noted that Paine's skills were chiefly in persuasion and propaganda and that no matter the content of his ideas, the fervor of his conviction and the various tools he employed on his readers (such as asserting his Christianity when he really was a Deist), Common Sense was bound for success. Still others emphasized the uniqueness of Paine's vision, with Craig Nelson calling him a "pragmatic utopian" who de-emphasized economic arguments in favor of moralistic ones, thus giving credence to the argument that Common Sense was propaganda.

Each argument is in some way true, and together, they portray Common Sense as an impressive piece of propaganda advocating a distinct and timely action and set of principles. Coupling them with the immense publicity and readership created by both the publishing dispute and the newspaper debates, Common Sense was an important stepping stone towards independence.

Quotes

• Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.
• Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
• Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled encreases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.
• But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain.
• For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called, their Christian names.

Black suffrage in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_States 



Lyndon Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Black suffrage in the United States refers to voting in elections in the United States by blacks. It has a checkered history, with many advances and setbacks. Prior to the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution some blacks in the United States were given the right to vote, however this right was often abridged, or taken away. After 1870 blacks were theoretically equal before the law, but the period of time between the end of Reconstruction era and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 showed that racial equality has been inconsistent in American life.


Background


1876 cartoon illustrating opposition to black suffrage

At the founding of the country, blacks were not given citizenship, nor the right to vote. Early legal acts, like the Naturalization Act of 1790 granted naturalized citizenship to "free white person[s] ... of good character," thus excluding slaves, free blacks , Native Americans, indentured servants, and Asians. However states were allowed to grant voting rights at the state level. Prior to the Civil War, free Negroes had suffrage in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. However, the right to vote was rescinded in New Jersey (1807) and Pennsylvania (1838). During this time, Abolitionists sought an end to slavery, and many demanded further rights such as suffrage. The 1857 Dred Scott case held that persons of black descent were not U.S. citizens.

After the Civil War, Reconstruction Era laws favored black suffrage, but in practice, blacks still faced obstacles to voting. Some of the "Black Codes" passed shortly after the legal abolition of slavery explicitly prevented blacks from voting. The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1870, stipulated: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The Enforcement Acts increased federal penalties for voter intimidation, particularly by white terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Blacks seeking suffrage were often met with violence and disenfranchisement. The 1873 Colfax massacre occurred when White locals fought with blacks and federal troops over black voting in Grant Parish, Louisiana. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated some of the Enforcement Acts, ruling that the federal government could only intervene to prevent discrimination by state actors. In United States v. Reese (1876), the Court upheld voting requirements such as literacy tests which do not explicitly discriminate on the basis of race. Jim Crow laws enforcing legal racial segregation at the state and local level in the Southern United States. were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by blacks during the Reconstruction Era.

Blacks continuously worked towards overcoming these barriers. A group of black activists formed the Niagara Movement in 1905, rebuking the Atlanta compromise and issuing a declaration which demanded universal manhood suffrage. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People formed in 1910 and pursued voting rights mostly through litigation. In Guinn v. United States (1915), the Supreme Court struck down a grandfather clause which functionally exempted only White people from literacy tests. The Court ruled against white primaries in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) and Nixon v. Condon (1932), upheld white primaries in Grovey v. Townsend (1935) and finally banned them with Smith v. Allwright (1944) and Terry v. Adams (1953). In Breedlove v. Suttles (1937), The Court upheld the constitutionality of a poll tax requirement for voting.

The Civil Rights Movement brought renewed attention to black voting rights. Florida voting rights activists Harriette Moore and Harry T. Moore were assassinated by the KKK in 1951. In 1960, Gomillion v. Lightfoot the Supreme Court struck down a plan to redraw district lines of Tuskegee, Alabama, on the grounds that it would disenfranchise black voters. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1962–1964, banned poll taxes as a precondition for voting in federal elections. The Supreme Court ruled against state poll taxes in 1966 in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections. Civil rights leaders began organized campaigns to register Black voters, including the federally endorsed Voter Education Project. A particularly intense voting rights struggle in Mississippi led to the death of Medgar Evers in 1963 and the Freedom Summer campaign in 1964. Organizers also created the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to challenge the white-dominated Mississippi Democratic Party. In Alabama, the highly publicized Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965 met with a violent response, bringing more scrutiny to suppression of Black voters. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited a range of discriminatory state voting practices. The Supreme Court upheld this law in the 1966 decision South Carolina v. Katzenbach.

Since the 1960s, the practice of gerrymandering and the creation of "majority minority" districts have sometimes been identified as threats to black voting rights in the U.S. The Supreme Court limits the Gomillion decision in Mobile v. Bolden (1980), distinguishing between racist effects and racist intent, and prohibiting only the latter. The Court ruled in Shaw v. Reno (1993) that if a redistricting plan is "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race'", it must be held to a "strict scrutiny" standard under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has since struck down redistricting plans for racial gerrymandering in Miller v. Johnson (1995), Bush v. Vera (1996), and several more cases.. The Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), holding that the racist practices which necessitated the law in 1965 no longer present a problem in 2013.

The film American Blackout alleges that disenfranchisement of black voters in Georgia led to the defeat of Cynthia McKinney in DeKalb County's 2002 Democratic primary.


African-American women's suffrage movement

African-American women began to work for political rights in the 1830s in New York and Philadelphia. Throughout the 19th century, African-American women like Harriet Forten Purvis, Mary Ann Shadd Cary, and Frances Ellen Watkins Harper worked on African American civil rights, like the right to vote. Black women had to fight for racial equality, as well as women's rights. They were often marginalized because of their race and their gender. This led to the creation of groups like the National Association of Colored Women. Black women gained the legal right to vote with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920. With women gaining the vote, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, African-American women became a powerful voting block.


Further reading

• Robinson, George M. Fredrickson Edgar E. (1995). Black Liberation: A Comparative History of Black Ideologies in the United States and South Africa. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195109788.