Evidence 1: The scene depicted in the painting “Auction in Chatham Square”

Evidence 2: “In the district of Jeffersonville, there has been an apparent interruption of the prosperity of the settlers. Upwards of two hundred quarter sections of land are by law forfeited to the government, for non-payment of part of the purchase money due more than a year ago. A year’s indulgence was granted by Congress, but unless farther accommodation is immediately allowed, the lands will soon be offered a second time for sale.”—Document 9.2: James Flint, Account of the Panic

Evidence 3: “[T]he interests of dealers and consumers necessarily conflict with each other, the first always aiming to narrow, whilst the latter, who form the majority of every nation, as constantly endeavor to enlarge competition; by which enlargement alone extravagant prices and exorbitant profits are prevented, it is the duty of every wise and just government to secure the consumers against both exorbitant profits and extravagant prices by leaving competition as free and open as possible.”—Document 9.3: Virginia Agricultural Society, Antitariff Petition

Evidence 4: “Society is an association for the protection of property as well as of life, and the individual who contributes only one cent to the common stock ought not to have the same power and influence in directing the property concerns of the partnership as he who contributes his thousands. He will not have the same inducements to care, diligence, and fidelity.”—Document 8.4: James Kent, Arguments against Expanding Male Voting Rights

Evidence 1: “Agriculture languishes—farmers cannot find profit in hiring laborers. The increase of produce in the United States is greater than any increase of consumpt that may be pointed out elsewhere. To increase the quantity of provisions, then, without enlarging the numbers who eat them, will only be diminishing the price father.”—Document 9.2: James Flint, Account of the Panic

Evidence 2: “That although these attempts are sustained in the plausible pretext of ‘promoting national industry,’ they are calculated (we will not say in design, but certainly in effect) to produce a tax highly impolitic in its nature, partial in its operation, and oppressive in its effects: a tax, in fact, to be levied principally on the great body of agriculturalists, who constitute a large majority of the whole American people . . .”—Document 9.3: Virginia Agricultural Society, Antitariff Petition

Evidence 3: “We have to apprehend the oppression of minorities, and a disposition to encroach on private right—to disturb chartered privileges—and to weaken, degrade, and overawe the administration of justice; we have to apprehend the establishment of unequal, and consequently, unjust systems of taxation, and all the mischiefs of a crude and mutable legislation.”—Document 9.4: James Kent, Arguments against Expanding Male Voting Rights

Evidence 4: Document 9.1: Auction in Chatham Square

Evidence 1: Document 9.1: Auction in Chatham Square

Evidence 2: “Labourers and mechanics are in want of employment. I think I have seen upwards of 1500 men in quest of work within eleven months past, and many of these declared, that they had no money. Newspapers and private letters agree in stating, that wages are so low as eighteen and three-fourth cents (about ten-pence) per day with board, at Philadelphia, and some other places.”—Document 9.2: James Flint, Account of the Panic

Evidence 3: “I have reflected upon the report of the select committee with attention and with anxiety. We appear to be disregarding the principles of the constitution, under which we have so long and so happily lived, and to be changing some of its essential institutions. . . . The tendency of universal suffrage is to jeopardize the rights of property and the principles of liberty. . . .”—Document 9.4: James Kent, Arguments against Expanding Male Voting Rights

Evidence 4: “The question before us is the right of suffrage—who shall, or who shall not, have the right to vote. The committee have presented the scheme they thought best; to abolish all existing distinctions and make the right of voting uniform. . . . To me, the only qualifications seem to be the virtue and morality of the people; and if they may be safely entrusted to vote for one class of our rulers, why not for all? In my opinion, these distinctions are fallacious.”—Document 9.5: Nathan Sanford, Arguments for Expanding Male Voting Rights