Analysis on Suffrage Extension in 1776 New Jersey

by Madilyn E. McGoodwin

Globally the American Revolution has become synonymous with the birth of personal freedom and liberty, and as a point of pride showing the world that the people can revolt against tyranny and make life better for themselves and those around them. Recent historical study has shed new light on how both sides of the revolution, the loyalists who demanded a reconciliation with Great Britain, and the patriots, those who wanted their objectives met at any cost, interacted with each other especially within their communities. While the loyalists shared many of the grievances the patriots had, the two sides had different perspectives on how to accomplish them. These goals are well known, “No Taxation without Representation” being the most prominent, and most relative to this essay. Geographically, New Jersey was at the forefront of tensions and fighting. Preservation New Jersey, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving significant sites throughout New Jersey, remarks that “…New Jersey suffered the greatest losses to persons and property in the Revolutionary War….”^[1] Socially, New Jersey was again at the forefront of the passions of the revolution. A large majority of New Jersey’s population were ineligible to vote, usually due to property requirements; as such, the rallying cries of “No Taxation without Representation” hit particularly close to home.^[2]

Historians define the pre-revolutionary period by increased tensions between the American colonies and England and multiple attempts by the Empire to subdue the colonial population. There were resentments held by both sides, especially concerning the interactions with the Native population. As the British began attempting to tax them, the colonists protested both nonviolently and violently. British authority punished both forms and defined them as a lack of cooperation. Most colonists were frustrated, if not downright opposed to the various Acts the Empire attempted to force on them and both Loyalists and Patriots agreed that they deserved more representation so that their opposition could have more of an impact, however different perceptions of representation existed. Revolutionary leaders initially called for representation for upper-class colonial citizens to have seats within parliament back in Great Britain, however it soon devolved into demands for independence seen with Reverend John Witherspoon’s statement, “To declare, not only that we esteem the claim of the British Parliament to be illegal and unconstitutional, but that we are firmly determined never to submit to it, and do deliberately prefer war with all its horrors…”.^[3] While the lower class citizens, who compromised a majority of the disenfranchised population, wanted broadened representation at home; within their towns, counties, and colonies. Demonstrated by what a “Jersey Farmer” wrote,

…thereto appointed as representatives of the people aggrieved, it is evident… that we must have the right to appoint… a representation for the same purpose….^[4]

Due to the ideology and turmoil of the American Revolution suffrage qualifications demanded reconsideration in at least some way; and most colonies changed the language of their voter qualifications to encapsulate more of the population, namely more upper-class white males.

However, none of the colonies extended their voter qualifications to allow universal suffrage with their new state constitutions, and New Jersey was the only one to enfranchise not only free Black people, but white women as well. One explanation for the anomaly that was the New Jersey Provincial Congress of 1775’s extension of suffrage to include white women and freed persons, is that the legislators for New Jersey were trying to implement revolutionary ideology in its most radical manifestation. However, more sufficient evidence exists to support the theory that a patriot leaning legislature, concerned by the committee’s destruction of the communities and loyalist’s protests, tried to defensively extend suffrage to appease the populace with the expectation that the newly included populations could never fully benefit. Optimists can make the argument that since New Jersey was at the heart of the revolution geographically, ideologically, and emotionally, this radical realization of the most significant aspect of “these truths [that are] self-evident” was a natural occurrence; however, most of these arguments unravel when viewing not only primary sources but scholarship on the subject as well.^[5]

Along with documents from those in revolutionary New Jersey and the Continental Congress, two areas of study are consulted: suffrage history and revolutionary era communities and organizations. The works referenced include Maxine Lurie’s recent book, Caught in the Crossfire, a piece on how the two sides interacted with each other within their communities, as well as how specific individuals from both sides fared throughout the war and after. Robert Reed’s 1988 dissertation on the committee system, focusing within the New England colonies, sheds light on how organized and systemic these committees and their responses became leading up to, throughout, and after the revolution. Another consulted reference pertaining to the community effects and responses towards the revolution is David Ammerman’s essay “The Tea Crisis and Its Consequences” within Jack Greene’s American Revolution companion book. Ammerman’s work is over the responses within the colonies to the Continental Congress and its actions, and what the public perceptions of the situation were, including to the committee systems. In studying the niche suffrage history within New Jersey, the consulted works included “The Petticoat Electors” by Judith Klinghoffer and Lois Elkis; this piece gives bountiful information on the beginning of the suffrage extensions, the effects the passing of the extension had in New Jersey, as well as how legislators took that right away. Stanley Engerman and Kenneth Sokoloff’s “Suffrage Evolution in the New World” from 2005 breaks down the voting rights by state and the changes made to them, from the beginnings of the colonies to the beginning of the twentieth century. Jan Ellen Lewis’s article “Rethinking Women’s Suffrage in New Jersey” offers a revised perspective on the suffrage extension and references Klinghoffer and Elkis’s 1992 work.

Voting rights have historically been a problem in the United States that persists today; these issues are not new. Even after the revolution most of the states, all but New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, had requirements that kept lower socio-economical class citizens disenfranchised.^[6] It is also known that John Adams had feared poor populations voting more than he feared formerly enslaved populations voting, describing leaders fears of over democratization.^[7] There is also the well-known history of coercive voting in America, where an individual or group forces another into voting a certain way. Historians can see this practice during and after the revolution with safety committees enforcing public virtue, whether that was for speech, voting, or ideological correctness; again, all sacred ideals of the American Revolution.^[8]

Socially in New Jersey, once the Continental Congress declared independence, support split nearly even, both for and against it. Before, however, considering public sentiment and knowledge of the situation, the public was against independence. Most of the public did not know that independence was an option until, before, or even after the leaders declared it. David Ammerman writes, “From the point of view of most [colonists], the delegates had adopted a moderate but determined stand.”^[9] Also evidenced by “B.N.” discussing the rationale and supporting the formation of the continental congress, “No delegate should go with a full persuasion that he has formed the proper plan of proceeding…every wise man will alter for the better, as he sees opportunity.”^[10] The Continental Congress implemented a committee system in the early chapters of the revolution, in order to help facilitate and control the narrative and colonies during strife between the two entities, the revolutionaries and the British Empire. These committees, while instrumental to the independence effort, also terrorized many of the community members in the regions where they were operating. Dr. Robert Reed defined the committee system as, “[…organizations existing] in every major American port and served primarily to keep protest [movement] leaders informed of other groups’ activities…,” eventually becoming a vehicle to perpetuate patriot campaigns and community virtue policing. This system was a significant source of enforcement and influence operating throughout the colonies.^[11] Dr. Reed communicates that these committees “…redefined acceptable social behavior in political terms….”^[12] The safety committees were influential in keeping loyalist protests dampened and under threat, as exampled by this quote from the Elizabeth Town Association,

…the assembly unanimously voted- That two certain pamphlets lately published….as containing many notorious falsehoods…calculated to sow the seeds of disunion…grossly misrepresenting the principle of the present opposition to parliamentary taxes; vilifying the late congress; and intended to facilitate the scheme of the British ministry for enslaving the colonies, be publicly burnt.^[13]

Any loyalist publications or activism efforts not conducted anonymously, were done with the knowledge that, as Dr. Reed wrote, “… refusal to subscribe to the association could have dire results...” including social exile, torture, or tarring and feathering.^[14] This patriot comprised committee system that helped organize and perpetrate violence against opposing or even thought of as opposing groups, achieved its purpose. The safety committees targeted harassment, whether due to loyalist support or affiliations and even being neutral in the situation, terrified the communities.^[15] Creating a divide in the populations that the legislature and revolutionaries needed to overcome.

 As author Maxine Lurie addresses in her recent book, Caught in the Crossfire, both sides partook in harassing and destroying not only the individuals of the other side loyalists and patriots, but also their property making this “…a civil war…”.^[16] This does not mean that, due to both sides perpetrating violence, the impact was equal.^[17] The Continental and Provincial congresses, and the various committees were taking actions that an acting government does, in what David Ammerman articulated as, “… a quasi-legal governmental structure” specifically in relation to the formation of the committees.^[18] In an anonymous publication attacking the Essex County committee, the author condemns the resolves and actions of both of the congresses, “…usurp not powers you will not allow to, nay, such as the King and Parliament dare not attempt.”^[19]  The committee actions alone were enough to tear communities apart and to cause distrust in the actions being taken by the institutions and assemblies that organized and authorized those committees; the same ones also assumed as actively attempting to repair the relationship with the Empire. As this “Loyalist Petition” shows the community tensions against independence,

…you, Gentlemen, as well as ourselves, cannot wish to lose Sight of, as the primary and constant Object as of present unhappy Dispute, namely, a safe, honorable, and lasting Reconciliation with Great Britain on constitutional Principles.^[20]

Protest within New Jersey was not new, nor uncommon. The pre-revolutionary period demonstrates this, and both the loyalists and the patriots were engaged in protests. James Madison, a colonist and founding father from Virginia, graduated from Princeton during the initial tensions and participated in the protests as a patriot against these while attending.^[21] The loyalists had conceded to the justifications of the patriots in their grievances against Great Britain. The main issue from the loyalist perspective was the liberties, both literally and figuratively, the patriot organizations were taking. Loyalists would bring attention to the hypocrisy of the patriots’ calls for representation, as the patriot’s taxed all inhabitants to fund their independence effort while continuing to deny representation to all taxpayers. The loyalists were also actively seeking to have their voting rights acknowledged while pointing out this hypocrisy. Nearly every county sent in petitions calling for an extension of suffrage to, at minimum, all free white men, and some demanding all taxpayers have an established right to vote.^[22] Other publications would echo the call for taxpayer suffrage, such as “A Jersey Farmer’ Proposes a Loyalist Association.” In this publication, the author calls for a separate loyalist association as a legal opposition to the faux continental congress, as well as an olive branch with Great Britain. Most farmers belonged to the disenfranchised population in this era. Thus, historians should view this call for an association as a path to extended suffrage.^[23] The author in “Jersey Farmer” also warns the delegates within the New Jersey Provincial Congress that their actions and elections themselves were unenforceable and void, due to circumventing involvement of the local communities, “… as we never voted or assented to the resolves or proceedings of any town or county meetings…”.^[24]

Loyalist calls for not only radically extended suffrage, but also to convene their own assemblies and organizations in order to protect the existing governmental structure within the British Empire, were dangerous for all revolutionaries. If the most foundational aspect of any government, local populations, feel disgruntled and cheated out of the now espoused most significant truth of civil humanity, the loyalist side may have felt more invigorated than ever against independence.

With the organizers and significant figures behind the ideological purpose of the revolution being those of higher socio-economical class, or simply holders of property who were already of influence and agency within the rights outlined in the existing British constitution, the definition of representation becomes particularly important. The primary participants of the independence effort had a perception of representation that conformed to them and their values and was remarkably similar to the English perception of representation. Klinghoffer and Elkis remark, “… New Jersey’s legislators, like their counterparts in other states and nations, believed… that those who possessed the necessary property were entitled to representation….”^[25] The different perceptions and definitions of representation between the two socio-economic classes are significant, as this Freeholder, one already of agency in terms of representation, points out “…when under the [pretense] of limiting the power of King, Lords and Commons, they create a power unknown to our constitution…”.^[26] Historians can see the importance of this perception,

Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice….^[27]

This quote from James Madison in 1787 shows a continued lack of intention for complete representation, keeping power balances the same. Seeing an extension of suffrage such as this as not only a defensive one, but also as counterintuitive to its stated purpose, shows the leaders of the revolution never intended for a full realization of their sacred ideals and even voiced opposition for it. This is significant for understanding the motives behind the face value suffrage extension. With the legislatures not intending to extend suffrage, due to a fear of “…over-democratization…” as Klinghoffer and Elkis phrased it, in direct contrast to what the public understands as a key component of the purposes of the war, the only explanation a patriot leaning Provincial Congress would extend suffrage in such a radical way is as a defensive position.^[28]

When considering the expansion of suffrage as a defensive position, historians must pay especial attention to its details. As loyalist opponents within New Jersey communities clamored for expanded suffrage, ranging from white male suffrage to universal taxpayer suffrage, citizens on the front lines also necessitated concessions from legislators. The delegates were cunning, lowering the property requirements just enough to seem progressive, and enfranchising white women and free black inhabitants who could meet those requirements.^[29] In the revolutionary era, most citizens, whether lower class white males, single women, or formerly enslaved men and women, could not meet these requirements.^[30] This superficial enfranchisement also had a social backdoor; if more individuals were able to qualify than intended, the impact would feel like a flooding of the political market with undesirable voters. This flooding of voters, whether perceived or real, caused diminishing returns in elections with contested elections, and legislators having to throw elections out; events that did happen.^[31] Legislators revoked the suffrage extension within thirty-one years of its inception, leaving only free white males taxpayers qualified to vote in 1807.^[32]

If radical ideological realization was not the purpose of New Jersey’s suffrage extension, its intents become even more intriguing. Facing the threats of over-democratization from revolutionaries’ own calls, compounded by the threats posed by destruction and activism within communities, as well as the revolution’s stated purpose. New Jersey legislatures took the radical step, while trying to ensure communities could never fully reap the benefits, of extending suffrage to lower socio-economic white men, single white women, and freed persons as a concession towards their own goals and beliefs with the American Revolution. Initiating such a move in an area so engrossed physically and emotionally with the war, the patriots were attempting to secure public support, or at least placation, while transitioning towards a new government with systems in place to face future difficulties, whether internal or external.

[1] “About,” Preservation New Jersey, February 8, 2017, https://www.preservationnj.org/listings/revolutionary-war-sites-of-new-jersey/#.

[2] Judith Apter Klinghoffer and Lois Elkis, “‘The Petticoat Electors’: Women's Suffrage in New Jersey, 1776-1807,” Journal of the Early Republic 12, no. 2 (1992): pp. 159-193, https://doi.org/10.2307/3124150, 165.

[3] Reverend John Witherspoon, “The Reverend John Witherspoon, ‘Thoughts on American Liberty,’ August 1774,” New Jersey State Library; New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Documentary History, accessed March 24, 2023, https://www.njstatelib.org/wp-content/uploads/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/NJInTheAmericanRevolution1763-1783/ThoughtsOnAmericanLiberty.pdf.

[4] A Jersey Farmer, “5.2 ‘A Jersey Farmer’ on Securing the Rights of Englishmen,” New Jersey State Library; New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Documentary History, accessed March 24, 2023, https://www.njstatelib.org/wp-content/uploads/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/NJInTheAmericanRevolution1763-1783/5.2.pdf.

[5] The Declaration of Independence, 1776. literal print § (1921).

[6] Stanley Engerman and Kenneth Sokoloff, “The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World,” The Journal of Economic History 65, no. 4 (December 2005):898, https://doi.org/10.3386/w8512.

[7] Jan Ellen Lewis, “Rethinking Women's Suffrage in New Jersey, 1776-1807,” Rutgers Law Review, accessed October 17, 2022, http://rutgerslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/archive/vol63/Issue3/Lewis.pdf, 1028- 1029.

[8] “‘A Freeholder’ to the Essex County Committee,” New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A documentary history (New Jersey Historical Commission, November 13, 2020), https://www.njstatelib.org/research_library/new_jersey_resources/highlights/american_revolution/; Robert Patrick Reed, “Loyalists, Patriots and Trimmers: The Committee System in the American Revolution, 1774-1776,” Loyalists, Patriots, and Trimmers: The Committee System in the American Revolution, 1774—1776 (dissertation, 1988), https://www.proquest.com/docview/303694366?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true. 14.

[9] Jack P. Greene and David L Ammerman, “The Tea Crisis and Its Consequences, through 1775,” in A Companion to the American Revolution (Malden, Ms: Blackwell, 2004), 200.

[10] B.N., “‘B.N.’ on the Continental Congress, July 25, 1774,” New Jersey State Library; New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Documentary History, accessed March 24, 2023, https://www.njstatelib.org/wp-content/uploads/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/NJInTheAmericanRevolution1763-1783/BN.pdf.

[11] Reed, “The Committee System in the American Revolution,” 2-3.

[12] Reed, “The Committee System in the American Revolution”, 24.

[13] “The Elizabethtown Association Resolutions, December 6, 1774,” New Jersey State Library; New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Documentary History, accessed March 24, 2023, https://www.njstatelib.org/wp-content/uploads/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/NJInTheAmericanRevolution1763-1783/3.12.pdf.

[14] Reed, “The Committee System in the American Revolution”, 193.

[15] Reed, “The Committee System in the American Revolution”, 37.

[16] Maxine N. Lurie, Taking Sides in Revolutionary New Jersey Caught in the Crossfire (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2022). xi.

[17] Reed, “The Committee System in the American Revolution”, 45.

[18] Ammerman, “The Tea Crisis and Its Consequences”, 199.

[19] “‘A Freeholder’ to the Essex County Committee”

[20] “‘A Loyalist Petition to the Provincial Congress Against Independence,’” New Jersey State Library (New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A documentary history, November 13, 2020), https://www.njstatelib.org/research_library/new_jersey_resources/highlights/american_revolution/.

[21] Unknown, “Protest Activities at the College of New Jersey, July 1770,” New Jersey State Library; New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Documentary History, accessed April 3, 2023, https://www.njstatelib.org/wp-content/uploads/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/NJInTheAmericanRevolution1763-1783/ProtestActivities.pdf.

[22] “The Salem County Petition to the Provincial Congress on Suffrage Reform,” New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A documentary history (New Jersey Historical Commission, November 13, 2020), https://www.njstatelib.org/research_library/new_jersey_resources/highlights/american_revolution/; Klinghoffer and Elkis, “The Petticoat Electors”, 165; Lewis, “Rethinking Women’s Suffrage”, 1019.

[23] “‘A Jersey Farmer’ Proposes a Loyalist Association,” New Jersey State Library; New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Documentary History (New Jersey Historical Commission), accessed October 7, 2022, https://www.njstatelib.org/wp-content/uploads/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/Revolution/Soldier.pdf.

[24] “A Jersey Farmer’ Proposes a Loyalist Association”

[25] Klinghoffer and Elkis, “The Petticoat Electors”, 167.

[26] “‘A Freeholder’ to the Essex County Committee”

[27] “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787: United States. Constitutional Convention (1787): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming,” Internet Archive (New Haven: Yale University Press), accessed November 23, 2022, https://archive.org/details/recordsfederalc00farrgoog/page/450/mode/2up, 450.

[28] Klinghoffer and Elkis, “The Petticoat Electors”, 167.

[29] Klinghoffer and Elkis, “The Petticoat Electors”, 165.

[30] Klinghoffer and Elkis, “The Petticoat Electors”, 167.

[31] Klinghoffer and Elkis, “The Petticoat Electors”, 188.

[32] Klinghoffer and Elkis, “The Petticoat Electors”, 189.