By the end of the Jeffersonian era, new political and social visions challenged the preference for a republican polity based upon the ownership of land in the Virginia Commonwealth. Between 1829 and 1833, Virginians engaged in a series of prolonged, and often divisive, debates over the fundamental nature of law and government in a modern republic. These debates were largely in response to the increasing social tensions borne upon an agrarian polity where political rights were derived exclusively from the ownership of land, and which were caused by diverging economic and commercial practices indicative of an emerging industrial economy. Accordingly, both the idea of an agrarian republic and the conceptions of property upon which it was grounded came under sharp public scrutiny as Virginians evaluated the suitability of their customs and traditions in a modern world. This paper examines the effort to bring about democratic reform in the Commonwealth during the Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830. At the core of this democratic impulse was an appeal for expanded suffrage and a more equitable system of representation premised upon the idea that citizenship should be vested in individual persons irrespective of property holdings or affiliation with a specific local polity. As such, the reform movement marked a rejection of the fundamental concepts of vicinage, homogeneity, and a localized political sphere and, instead, expressed a preference for a centralized polity that facilitated physical and social mobility, a diversified political economy, and allowed for greater fluidity in interest group or party alignment. In their effort to implement these changes, reformers criticized the existing power arrangements of the Commonwealth by rejecting the image of virtuous, republican freeholders and, instead, characterized them as feudal aristocrats who had corrupted the fundamental principles of Virginia’s self-government. The debates surrounding the revision of the state constitution thus signaled a deviation from the orthodox political conceptions of the freehold as the material base of republican citizenship in the Commonwealth. Reformers rejected the proprietary notions of status and service traditionally associated with the ownership of land, and instead treated landed property, as they did all other forms of property, as a mere expression of wealth and privilege. Conservatives reacted to the reform effort by emphasizing their defense of their property in slaves and allowed the re-conceptualization of real property to advance virtually unchallenged. Such was especially the case in the compromise achieved on suffrage reform. In the process of amending the right of suffrage the meaning of the freehold was expanded to include those who had legally recognized future rights in the land. Even more significantly, the legal means of describing a freehold was changed from a method that defined freeholds in terms of acreage to one that considered them in terms of assessed monetary value. This new definition signaled a preference to consider money as the primary medium of value and further encouraged an exclusively commodity conceptualization of land ownership. Accordingly, this new republican vision divorced the freehold from the classical moorings that had defined its essence and provided the basis for agrarian republican notions of liberty and virtue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]