What were the main arguments used, for and against, in the debate over suffrage expansion during the Jackson era? Which arguments were the most valid? There were numerous arguments between the two conflicting parties over the expansion of suffrage during the Jackson era. So, what is the right to vote? Suffrage is the right to vote. This was a major debate during Jackson's era. Jackson was born in the Carolinas. Carolina was an agrarian state at the time. Jackson supported both agrarian society and the common man. Before Jackson, the right to vote was only granted to the majority owning a certain amount of land. This wasn't a big problem because the majority of people owned land before Jackson. As Jackson became president, cities grew and land ownership became more difficult. After Jackson took his place, the Western border states were the first to allow all white men to vote. Eastern politicians were influenced and wanted more voters. So they too revised their constitution to remove the requirement of land ownership for voting. The state that had the hardest time adapting was Virginia. Virginia was an aristocratic state, so the aristocrats rejected the idea of ​​letting the people vote. Long after most states abandoned the property requirement for voting, Virginia finally abandoned the requirement in 1851. This tells us that aristocrats with land supported the property requirement and that people with little or no of land argued the opposite. Major arguments have been made by Nathan Sanford, James Kent and George Bancroft. Nathan Sanford was a senator from New York, a delegate to the New York State Constitutional Convention, and chancellor of New York. New York held a convention to revise the state constitution...... middle of paper ......te. The landowner votes and a president with radical ideas is elected. The next thing that happens is the country descends into chaos. If the law allowed all white men to vote, there would be no more corrupt politicians. The masses could choose the president who would best suit the people as a whole. These people presented major arguments in the debate over suffrage expansion. People like Sanford made arguments that I didn't think were valid. The result of this debate ended with the expansion of the vote. Now all white men can vote. I think Bancroft's argument was the best to express my point of view, but I think Kent's argument was the most convincing of all. The expansion of voting rights has led to greater public involvement in government, which is positive in many ways. After expansion, polls could now be written and people could read and hear more about political parties..