In America, the world’s main exporter of consistency, there are two ages that get used as ‘legal ages’ in most contexts: 18 and 21. The first number makes sense once you remember that guaranteed state-funded education stops for most people at age 18. The second number makes much less sense. Most people don’t graduate college until 22 (for the standard four-year degree) or 20 (for a two-year program). As I understand it, there is no such thing as a ‘three-year degree’ for the majority of people who go to college at all. So where does 21 come from as a legal age?
First, there are several “legal ages” that are used in law.
Wiki lists:
age of candidacy
age of consent
age of criminal responsibility
age of majority
legal drinking age
marriageable age
minimum driving age
voting age
These vary considerably from state to state and from country to country. Even the age of majority, which perhaps is closest to your concept, is 17 in Louisiana and the age of graduation from high school (if under 18) in several states.
The “legal age” of whatever definition has nothing to do with modern theories of education in the U.S. It’s a leftover from British common law and ages of legal responsibility, when an heir could inherit, when a regency was lifted for a royal, and other such necessities. It existed in the U.S. from earliest times, even though it was not until 1950 when even half the population graduated high school.
For one thing, it’s the product of the magic numbers 3 and 7.
I’m not sure where “21” specifically comes from, but I’ve heard that there used to be several things that opened up at that age, and pretty much only being drafted into the military was at 18. So the argument was made that you should be given the vote if you can be sent to die for your country.
21 as the legal drinking age should probably, if anything, be moved to 25. I would have to imagine that insurance companies have a better idea of when young people are reliable enough to be put behind the wheel of a car than anyone else.
I was thinking along the same lines. It may very well have occult or esoteric roots. The ancient Chinese, for one, used astrological methods to determine that women’s lives are best ordered by seven year spans, men’s by eights. (In Traditional Chinese Medicine, it’s thought that the “vital life essence” or jing, develops, rises and falls in these cycles.) “Adulthood” at 21 fits in very nicely for women, although it would be too young for men. Which, frankly, fits what I’ve observed of most young men and women as well.
Women 0-6, Men 0-7 = infancy
Women 7-13, Men 8-15 = childhood
Women 14-20, Men 16-23 = adolescence
Women 21-27, Men 24-31 = maturation, time to set up home and business
Women 28-34, Men 32-40 = ideal baby making time
According to my political science teacher that was the basis of the passage of the 26th Amendment. Then again, he says many other dubious things so take it for what it’s worth.
As far as the drinking age being 21 here in the United States, it is that way because the Federal government has set that age as the legal standard that states must adopt to receive federal highway funding. Cite.
Right, but I think the OP is asking why 21, as opposed to 20 or 22.
Ah, the philosophical “Why?” rather than the legal “Why?”.
If you want the answer to that you should probably ask MADD, because they were the major advocate for the change.
Exapno nails it: it’s a common age for official majority because historically it has been a common age, particularly in legal contexts where precedent can be traced.
One WAG that seems to have some validity behind it is the cursus honorum of boys from the aristocracy back in feudal societies: at age 7, you became a page, running errands for the king/duke/count/squire; after 7 years, at age 14, you became an esquire, “apprenticing” to a knight to learn the arts of war and the courtesies expected from you as a gentleman; after another 7 years, you were eligible to be dubbed a knight – at age 21.
I suspect that it has more to do with getting a bunch of upperclass white guys in a room and having them compromise on an age.
If I remember correctly, slaves were 3/5ths of a person in computing the population of a state according to the Constitution. Again, I doubt that “3/5ths” has any particular meaning. It was just a number high enough to appease those who wanted it high, and low enough to appease those who wanted it low.
Exapno Mapcase: That, unfortunately, sounds like what the real answer is likely to be: It is an arbitrary number with some absurdly long pedigree dating back to dirt farmers who couldn’t even write their own names but could commission castles.
I did specifically mention that the concept of ‘legal age’ is contextual. Until I did the same Wikipedia research you did, I didn’t know how much the age of majority varies by state. (Apparently, it’s as high as 21 in Mississippi and (partially) contingent upon high school graduation in Kentucky.) Thus I was lulled into the false sense of consistency as regards 18, which happens to be voting age and draft age (both as per Federal law). That unfortunate mindset made 21 seem so out of place.
David Simmons: Also, two plus one equals three, two times one equals two, and three plus two equals five! Twenty-one plus two is twenty-three! All our law is based on numerology, and the Law of Fives prevails!
(That Chinese system is interesting, but I think it’s more to do with men wanting to take young wives. ;))
WhyNot: Yes, I am indeed asking why 21 as opposed to 20 or 22 or 25 for that matter.
(After multiple previews, thread changing each time…)
Polycarp: I thought so. It all comes back to those illiterate dirt farmers.
And on edit, I simulpost with Sage Rat who has a realistic idea.
For the age 21, It’s an extremely ancient belief and has to do with the Climacteric and the supposed mystic power of the number 7 and its multiples.
"According to the astrologers, the person would see some very notable alterations to the body, and be at a great risk of death during these years. Authors on the subject include the following: Plato, Cicero, Macrobius, Aulus Gellius, among the ancients; as well as Argol, Maginus, and Salmasius. Augustine, Ambrose, Bede, and Boetius all countenanced the belief.
The first climacteric occurs in the seventh year of a person’s life; the rest are multiples of the first, such as 21, 49, 56, and 63, the last of which was called the grand climacteric, with the dangers here being supposedly more imminent.
The belief has a great deal of antiquity on its side. Aulus Gellius says that it was borrowed from the Chaldeans; who might probably receive it from Pythagoras, whose philosophy (Pythagoreanism) was based in numbers, and who imagined an extraordinary virtue in the number 7."
I’ve heard that the motivation was to try to keep alcohol out of high schools. If the drinking age is 18, then the seniors in high school will be able to buy booze, and presumably share it with the underclassmen at parties. At 19 or 20, you might still see a few folks in high school, if they were held back a grade or two. But by 21, if you haven’t graduated yet, you’re probably not going to, so you see very few high-schoolers who could buy the alcohol for a party, and so you can (to some extent) keep the stuff away from the 14 and 15 year olds.
The thing is, 21 as the age of legal majority well predates the “finish high school and then four years of college” or even the “attend high school until graduate/turn 18” concepts. We’ve addressed some of the near-past reasons for keeping it at 21, but none of this (except unsubstantiated stuff from Exapno and myself) suggests why it was set at 21 in the first place. Any medieval historians or students of the history of law around who can shed any light on that?
Well, I know James Burke mentioned it in one of the episodes of “The Day The Universe Changed.” There was a re-enactment of a medieval hearing about an inheritance, and the person in question was mentioned as being of legal age, ie 21.
Silenus, your post reminded me of something. I wonder if it has anything to do with the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities, which is explained at its Wikipedia page:
Note that nowadays, the Rule has sometimes been changed statutorily, or eliminated altogether, depending on jurisdiction.
But since the Rule harks back to 1682, and deals with “21 years,” and age 21 as a legal age is important not only in the US, but has been in other countries that take their legal system from English common law (Canada, the UK, Australia, etc.), then it would seem that a good argument could be made for the Rule as being the answer to the OP’s question. Or at least something that indicates that “21 as a legal age” is an old English concept that comes from sometime before 1682.
The problem with that is that English monarchs were inherited the throne as children ascended to the throne at age 18, not 21. That would seem to indicate that 18 was considered the legal age of adulthood in England historically. Unfortunately, the law is totally muddled since there was no one standard act of regency, just ad hoc bills for immediate situations.
The standard is the** completion** of twenty years, not just being twenty years of age. Twenty-one is twenty years & one day. The day you turn twenty-one you have completed your twentieth year.
Twenty being a nice round number to complete, as opposed to nineteen or twenty-one.
No.
On your first birthday, you have completed your first year and started the first day of your second year
On your twentieth birthday, you have completed your twentieth year and started the first day of your twenty-first year.
On your twenty-first birthday, you have completed your twenty-first year and started the first day of your twenty-second year.
This is the sort of crap we get from people who think that the millennium started in the year 2000 instead of 2001.
Actually English/Scottish/British monarchs ascend to the throne the moment their predecessor died/abdicated. They weren’t allowed to actually “rule” until 18. However there’s nothing in common law to prevent an underage monarch (even an infant) from ruling (Henry VIII became king at 17 and didn’t have a regent). And act of parliement (or in olden days the previous monarch’s will) is needed to establish a regency. Here’s another quirk, Prince Charles took his seat in the House of Lords in 1969 after he turned 21 like any other peer (he’s the Duke of Cornwall), however as the eldest son of the monarch in theory he could’ve taken it in 1952 (when Elizabeth became Queen) at the age of 3.