University of Virginia Library

4. CHAPTER IV.

THE principle of universal suffrage was much agitated
at this time: whether every poll, as the word imports
should poll, or have a vote; or that property should
also vote. If property alone, the question would arise,
whether soil only; or also goods and chattles. If soil
only, to what quantity or quality, shall the suffrage be
attached? An hundred acres of soil of a bad quality, may
not have the intrinsic worth of one of good. How should
an inspector, or judge of an election, determine on the
quality, unless the owner brings a sample with him,
as the man who had his house to sell, brought a
brick. This would be an inconvenience; and would
render it impracticable to escape frauds. For a man
might dig a sample from his neighbours, and pass it for
his own. And as to quantity, the occupier of the greater
quantity, is the most worthless citizen; at least the
one who occupies more than he cultivates; because he
neither eats the hay, nor lets another eat it. It is preposterous
that soil should vote; a dumb field, a dead
tree with a crows nest upon it; an hazle bush; a morass,
or a barren mountain; or even a hill with a tuft of
oaks upon it. These are all inanimate substances; how
can they vote? For goods and chattles something might
be said; a live beast particularly; as the animal could
speak, not with a viva voce vote, like a man; more humano,
like a human creature. But with some guttural
sound from the throat, or fauces, which might be called
its own; and not like the tree with a turkey buzzard on
it; and which is not its own voice. I mean that of the
tree, said the speaker, who was running on in this manner;
and yet it is advocated, that stocks and stones that
go with the soil shall have a vote. There might be some
reason in improvements voting; a brick house or a dutch
barn; but none at all in the mere brutum tellus of an
estate.

This led the way to an hypothesis, that property in
moveables should alone entitle; and this, after some debate,
began to be narrowed down to property in living
animals; especially to useful quadrupeds, and those of
full growth, and who had come to years, I will not say of

discretion, but of maturity. From the light thrown upon
the subject, the right of suffrage to grown cattle had become
so popular, that there was no resisting it; not that
viva voce it was proposed or thought of that, inarticulating
speaking creatures should speak out, or name their
representatives, nor even that they should give in a ballot,
but that they should be brought upon the ground to
shew their faces, that there might be no imposition, the
voters alleging that they had cattle when they had not.

But it was not to every owner's beast that it was advisable
to extend the right; but only to the more valuable
animals; or such as were of a good breed; Virginia horses
that are fit for the saddle or the turf.

It may seem very strange; but actually the thing
took; and at a polling some time after, it began to be
carried into effect that beasts should be constituents, and
have their representatives. It was not the principle, but
to the individual beast that some exceptions took place;
as for instance, an English bull was brought upon the
hustings to give his vote. We will have no English bull
said the inspectors. Not that a brute beast is not entitled
to a vote; nor that a bull cannot vote, or be voted for;
but this is an English bull. No English bull can vote.
You might as well bring an Englishman himself, to the
polls. It is in right of the bull-keeper, or rather bull-owner,
that the bull claims the suffrage. If an Englishman
himself, not naturalized, is excluded, how can his
bull or his horse, or any other quadruped be admitted?
It would be sufficient to set aside the election if his ticket
was introduced. A bull indeed! The name of John
Bull is appropriate to an Englishman. An Irish bull is
quite another matter; John Bull shall have no vote
here.

In the mean time, a man on an iron-grey horse rode up
to the window, which was open for receiving tickets, and
unequivocally insisted on a vote for his horse. Vouchers
stood by, who averred that he was foaled in the county,
that, horse and colt, they had known him many years;
that as to his paying taxes, they could not so well say,
unless his labour on the farm could be considered as paying
tax.

In the mean time, the horse putting his nose in at the
window, taking it for a rack, an inspector gave him a fillup
on the snout, which resenting; the owner wheeling
round, the horse wheeling under him, he rode over one

or more of the bystanders who were in the way. Certain
it is, the horse was a meritorious horse, having seen
service in the campaign under General Wayne against
the Indians in 1793. Nevertheless, they that had been
rode over did not brook the affront, or put up with it unrevenged;
for calling out horse, horse, to which some
added the word stolen, as fame increases as it goes, it
was echoed along the lines stolen horse; upon which the
man was apprehended, and carried before a magistrate,
who not having heard of the right of beasts to vote,
thought this story improbable as he related what had
passed at the window of the election house, and for want
of proper bail he was committed. It may be material
to mention that the horse's mane and tail were black to
distinguish him from a grey horse that belonged to another
person. I have known several that knew the horse;
but who were not present on the occasion to which we
refer, and so, will not undertake to vouch for the
truth of it, not having charged their memory with it, or
taken a note of it at the moment it occurred. Or it may
be, they do not chuse to recollect it, or give information
on the subject, thinking it prudent not to involve themselves
on elective disputes, as there is no knowing, when
parties run high, how far the bare vouching for a fact
may involve one. Such is the result of strong passions
when not under the controul of reason and reflection
Weak persons are always the most positive, because
they cannot afford the acknowledgment of an error
It will not do to admit fallibility; for there is no
knowing how far the inference may be drawn.

Another man came up who brought a sheep to the
polls; a merino ram, who, he said, was entitled to a vote,
having resided in the country, since he had been brought
in by Humphreys, representing him to be of the breed
of the great Fezzen ram, though there were those who
thought it might be what is called a yankey trick; not
but, that all Americans may be capable of substituting
a thing for what it is not; and all are called Yankees
by the British; but New-England men are distinguished;
and called Yankee Doodles.

The ram is not entitled to a vote said the inspector,
nor ought he to be permitted to put in a ticket, were
he of the breed of the golden fleece guarded by the
fiery dragons whom Jason overcame; and brought
away the wool; no; not if he was the very ram that

was caught in the thicket; or that Daniel saw in his
vision coupled with the he goat. But he is a Spanish
ram born under despotism, how can he be expected
to give a republican vote; of papist origin, he
may bring the inquisition with him; coming here
to vote. Besides, this is a very real sheep, that is
offered; and not one whom we call a sheep in a figurative
sense of the word. Where we call men horses,
or asses, we do not mean always that they are so, puris
naturalibus, without overalls on, with the horn and
the hoof about them, but shadowing forth the same thing
under a veil of metaphor, as the case may be. But
not on this ground altogether do I reject him; and
because he has wool on his back; but, because he is
of barbary origin. The Moors brought the breed into
Spain. You may cast a sheep's eye at the window as
long as you please, master ram; but not a vote shall you
have as long as I am here. I do not know whether you
are not a half breed, and no genuine merino. So away
with him, as the song says,

Another person coming up, brought a large ox, which
he called Thomas Jefferson; not out of respect to the
ox, but to the man, as having a good name and reputation.
Make way, said the voters, for Thomas Jefferson.
We will have no Thomas Jeffersons, said the inspector;
he is out of his district. I assert the contrary, said the
owner; he was calved in this settlement. He is called
the mammoth ox, and I had thought of driving him to
Washington; but that I knew, however he might be
made a present to Jefferson, the congress would eat
him, as they did the mammoth cheese; so that the president
would scarcely get a slice of him. For there are
parasites in all countries; and the worthless are chiefly
those who dance attendance upon men in office; and how
can it be avoided to invite them to partake of civilities?
You will certainly allow a vote to Thomas Jefferson —
No; not if he was the real Jefferson from Monticello,
said the inspector. How can I tell but he may introduce
the same politics? That is true, said another; break
judges, abolish taxes, dismantle navies, build gunboats,
lay embargoes, depress armies, pay tributes to barbary
powers, issue proclamations, wear red breeches, receive
ambassadors in pantaloons and slippers, collect prairie

dogs, and horned frogs, dream of salt mountains, walk
with Pedimetres, and be under French influence. We
will have no Thomas Jefferson. You may drive off your
ox. He shall have no vote here.

No doubt the judges and inspectors, being men of
sense, saw the absurdity of carrying the principle so far
into practice, as to admit the representation of property,
by this property being itself, and in its own individual existence,
the constituent. But not thinking it safe, or
practicable, to resist this temporary phrenzy, and misconception
of things, by a direct resistance, it became
necessary, by indirect means to avoid it. To lay it down
in the face of the multitude that these new voters had not
a right, would not have been endured; but parrying it
by questioning the right in a particular case, gave no
umbrage. It was saving the principle, though it denied
the exercise. The man that had rode down the bystanders,
and was taken up for a horse thief, was pardoned
by the governor. This was done to get quit of
the investigation; the governor thinking it for the credit
of the country that there should be nothing said about
the occasion, and manner of the felony; or the mistake
under which the imputation had arisen.

But, party spirit at this time had begun to run high;
some insisting on the right of suffrage to their cattle;
and others considering it a burlesque. You might have
seen shilelahs in the air, and several bullocks were
knocked down that were brought up to the polls. A lad
was tumbled from his palfry as he was riding him to
water, under an idea that he was bringing him to aid the
adverse ticket. The lad was somewhat hurt by the fall,
and the steed ran off, and could not be caught again until
salt was shewn him, and oats in a hat, some one crying
cope, cope. The ram that had been offered, seeing arrive
the sheep, cried ba; and it was insisted that he had
given his vote, which the candidate against whom it was
taken down, resented; and hit the tup a stroke, that, in
the sailor's phrase, brought him on his beam ends.—
The blow, however, which was aimed at a pig in a poke,
which a man was carrying home, and which was heard
to squeal; struck the man himself: What, said the assailant,
are you bringing here the swinish multitude to
vote?

Nevertheless, it was not so much the admitting quadrupeds,
but unqualified cattle that became the subject

of the controversy; intelligent persons arguing that it
was a thing shameful in itself, and unjust. Because it
was a fraud upon the whole community, that stragglers
should be brought forward, which the individual concerned
in the fraud reconciled to himself on the
score of serving the party: That it required some refinement
to be aware of the indelicacy of urging an improper
vote. Was it reasonable to suppose that a horse
creature could give an independent vote, that was in the
power of his owner to be stinted of his oats, and rode faster
or slower as he thought proper, on a journey? Was it
reasonable to expect that the ox would think differently
on political subjects from his master? Should he venture
to dissent, a crack of the whip or the spur, would bring
him to his senses. Even a rational creature, that may
be supposed to have more fortitude, is usually in subjection
to the master, in matter of opinion, where he is a
slave. It is for this reason that slaves are excluded. —
Whatever might plausibly be said as to the expediency of
extending the privilege of citizenship to those animals
that are feræ naturæ, and are at their own hands in a
forest, it is quite another matter as far as it respects domesticated
animals, that have no will of their own, but
are under dominion, whether subjugated to a plough or
a team. The wild animals that roam, have some spirit
of independence. They would starve before they would
tamely submit themselves to arbitrary rule, and government.
Hence it is, that traps are used. It requires
shooting to bring some of them to terms. But an ox
may be goaded into acquiescence. He does not drink
whiskey, it is true; and for that reason, it cannot
be said that whiskey will purchase him; but is there
nothing to be done with good grass? The inticements are
various that might be held out to allure from the independence
of his own judgment.

As to horses voting on the occasion we are speaking
of, so far as matter of fact is concerned, I admit it has
been denied. For, that though a great number of horses
were seen to be ridden up; yet it is usual to go on horseback
to elections, especially when the voters have to
come from some distance; so that the mere circumstance
of being on the ground, is no conclusive evidence of having
given a vote; and this I am the more careful to note,
as in the case of a new government, that like an individual,
has a character, in some measure, to establish, it is of

moment, that what is groundlessly alleged, be explained.
At the same time, I am aware of the impolicy of denying
a thing in toto where there is any foundation;—
were there no other reason that would induce an historian
to adhere to the truth. For even where a man is
pressing a matter that is difficult to be believed, and he
has nothing in truth to concede, he will yield a little, skilfully,
in order to give the impression of candour, and
secure belief to the more important points. How much
more does it behoove a writer to be careful of insisting
on the freedom from all blame on the part of those
whom he advocates, lest that he bring in question the veracity
of his relation, where he has every thing on his side.
I do not therefore say positively, that the inspectors and
judges of the election, in some districts, were not deceived,
and their vigilance baffled; or that they did not
connive. For that would be saying too much, considering
the nature of affairs. The most vigilant cannot always
watch; and the most severe in their notions of the
rights of persons, may indulge. But, granting that some
horse creatures did vote, with their riders on their backs,
does it follow that the inspectors had notice of it; or
that the persons who usually stand by and vouch for the
right of suffrage to the individual, were not to blame.—
They may have announced their names as rational persons;
and under that idea, may have got their votes
taken. I have been the more careful in throwing out
these hints, because if it were once admitted that such
votes did pass, unless surreptitiously, and sub silentio,
it might grow into precedent. And we well know, that
in matters of political and legal law, precedent has the
force of authority. It may be suggested as not fairly
presumable that inspectors and judges could be deceived.
I have seen too much of elections not to think that practice
to be unfair, where an individual, powerful for wealth
or family, is a candidate, or where there is a contest of
party somewhat violent; and unprincipled and daring individuals,
will take their stations, and act as common vouchers
on an election day, as to the name, age, freedom, or
estate of the person who offers a vote. He will be supported
by pugilists, or persons prepared with clubs, who
though they do not actually strike, will menace with this
appearance of force, and intimidate those who might dispute
the vouching that is given. I consider all this
as immoral and unbecoming a good citizen. But I
have seen even inspectors and judges intimidated by
this shew of hostility; and I would not wonder if I were
to hear that under this awe, in some places, improper
votes were taken. Not that I would excuse this timidity
of officers, as lessening it from a misdemeanor, to a
mere neglect of duty. I reprehend both the overawing
and the being overawed in the discharge of a public
trust.

But in justice to the character of the country, I incline
to think after all that has been reported to the contrary,
that instances of beasts voting were more rare than is
imagined; and that a considerable foundation of what has
gone abroad on this head, was the epithets bestowed by
the contending parties calling one another beasts; such
as horses, asses, sheep, buffaloes, oxen, and the names
of other cattle. All this metaphorically, just as persons of
a less polished education, where they dispute on literary
or theological subjects, call each other geese, sucking
pigs, or turkey-buzzards. I have heard even well bred
persons speak of their antagonists after a warm debate,
as wood-peckers and mire-snipes. In political controversies,
it is no uncommon thing to bestow the epithets
of jack-ass. I have heard even an accomplished lady,
use the term monkey, speaking of an individual of the
other sex. It would be endless to enumerate such instances
of the application of terms, that do not in themselves
import the natural form or metamorphose of any
person.