More than a century after the formation of the nation, women in the United States were regarded as home-keepers and were not allowed to participate in public life. Although the country had been declared a Republic, women had no right to vote for representatives. The exercise was exclusively men’s business. Society viewed women as homemakers who were not qualified to participate in politics. In New York State, the fight over women’s suffrage was a long fight that took almost half a century before new energies of women activists from both sides entered the debate. Both suffragists and anti-suffragists arguments were based on similar grounds, but the importance and the power of the vote are where they differed. In the 1900s, the women involved were brave white women educated and financially stable.
In 1911 anti-suffragist seemed to gain stability and a significant influence on the public, something that gave suffragists an extra push to keep persisting. And as a result of its stable financial position and the presence of well-equipped activists, the suffragist party was able to stand against its odds. It argued that the government was not qualified to consider itself a Republican since it failed to consider what being republican meant. On the contrary, the anti-suffragists claimed empowering women to vote would cause a lot of disharmonies in society. Both suffragists and non-suffragists campaigns contended that they were fighting for the great interest of the majority.
According to suffragists, Anna Howard Shaw’s speech “The Fundamental Principle of a Republic” given during the equal suffrage campaigns on 21st June 1915 stresses that New York had not met all the requirements of a Republic state. According to Shaw, Republic is a form of government that includes all in the decision-making process of most fundamental issues of the state[1]. Although the New York government claimed to be republican, it was more of an aristocracy. It discriminated against women from exercising their voting rights. According to Shaw, men were consistent in failing to deliver what they promised to the public ever since[2]. Alot of discrimination was consistently experienced by residents from the government, which claimed to be republican for a long time, based on colour, religion and gender. However, the issue of suffrage against gender had been ignored and opposed with lame excuses that women were ignorant, would-be irresponsible electors, would neglect their families, and their place was home, not in politics[3]. Some anti-suffragists argued granting women the right to vote would translate to social disharmony.
According to Anna Howard Shaw, the reasons provided by men and anti-suffrage were all ignorant. For both males and females, where ignorance was a concern, no gender was better than the other. Men claimed that if women were allowed to vote would mean allowing more ignorant people to vote, a claim that indicated their ignorance[4]. Women are responsible, and allowing them to vote would allow them to vote for representatives they can work with to even take greater care of their homes. Also, divorces experienced would not increase because of having a true result republican government. A couple cannot fight because their opinions vary; families always have different opinions. Anna Howard Shaw, in her argument, insisted that women are not fighting to be allowed to play a part in the ballot to fight men but to support them[5]. Allowing women to vote fulfils God’s command and the requirement of a republican government.
“The Crisis” speech by Carrie Chapman Catt, given in 1916, stressed that the long suffrage fight was ending. Both men and women were more convinced of women’s capabilities besides being home dwellers[6]. More women have joined positions that society assumed to belong only to men, leaving behind unimaginable records. According to Carrie Chapman Catt, the revolution experienced in all aspects of life was an indication that the time was due for suffragists to push on their agenda and give women a voice in the vote[7]. The suffrage movement had gone through the evolution stages of agitations and education and had reached the stage of realization. With well-laid strategist suffragist movement had achieved significance in women’s education, employment, religious leadership, and some estates in the United States had considered women on the ballots. With all recorded achievements, Catt believed that the majority of both men’s and women’s attitudes had significantly changed, and their perception of women was more positive than a few years ago[8]. Suffragists have mobilized more influential people to demand all American women be granted the right to vote.
On the contrary, anti-suffragists were busy campaigning to convince the public that women’s right to vote would cause societal disharmony. Popular anti-suffragists, including Josephine Dodge and Alice Hills Chittenden, played the leading roles. In the article “Case Against Vote for Women”, Mrs. Arthus Dodge, the president of the National Association Opposed to Women Suffrage (NAOWS), argued that women did not need to vote because they were fully represented by their husbands politically and women’s focus on the family need not be disrupted[9]. Second, women have no worrying reason to vote because the government has guaranteed them protection since they are taxpayers just like men. According to Dodge, women’s vote adds no value to the state. Chicago, which has given women the right to vote, has nothing special to show, and on the other side, some have experienced fraud after allowing women to vote[10]. The third is that politics corrupts women’s behaviour and morals, resulting in social problems avoidable by unenfranchising women’s rights to vote. Dodges stress that women’s roles in society are more important than politics and need to be protected.
Anti-suffragist Alice Hill Chittenden, in the newsletter, “A woman’s Referendum”, insisted on a women’s referendum. Her proposal was not to back up the suffragist’s proposal of an amendment referendum on the New York constitution but to determine whether women wanted to be enfranchised or not[11]. According to Chittenden, statistics from Massachusetts indicated that most women were indifferent to women’s enfranchisement issues. However, the challenge is women cannot be left to decide on their own.[12]. If women voted in favour of suffrage, the anti-suffragist would withdraw their opposition in the amendment process. On the contrary, if they fail to vote for suffrage, men will take over and decide on their behalf[13]. Providing women with an opportunity to determine whether they want a franchise and its responsibilities will give a satisfactory response to both parties.
In an interview newsletter, “Miss Alice Hill Chittenden Says Cataclysm Will Be Consequence of Giving Vote to Women, “Chittenden claimed that men and women were created to play distinct roles[14]. According to Chittenden, women were not politically equipped with the necessary political information as men. Therefore, giving them the right to vote would make them irresponsible electors, which will not add value to the government but somewhat weaken it. Women will add an unnecessary burden to the public and cause social disruption by doing what is meant to be men’s responsibilities[15]. The cost of enfranchisement is not worth it. Women need to be educated first, just like men, before being entitled to a ballot.
The fight between suffrages and anti-suffrages was heavy and hot. Each party gave the best argument it knew how. Suffrages argued that giving women the right to vote was not only for self-protection but also for self-reliance. Enfranchisement will make women more involved with government issues and make women more responsible women, better mothers, wives and citizens. On the contract, anti-suffrage claimed that the right to vote would disrupt the traditional role of women and overburden them for nothing. The campaigns between the two parties were a braze, and anti-suffrage seemed to get more public influence. Two years later, due to more women joining schools and work, there was a change in most people’s attitudes which contributed to a big win for suffragists. The 1917 referendum in New York enfranchised women. The raffle heightened after the referendum; however, the suffragist pushed for federal amendments, and in 1920 the government introduced the nineteenth Amendment bill that entitled women to vote in the United States. Both suffragists and anti-suffragist had to keep their differences apart and helped with the transition process.
Bibliography
ALICE HILL, CHITTENDEN. “Miss Alice Hill Chittenden Says Cataclysm Will be Consequence of Giving Vote to Women.” New York Times (1857-1922), Feb 14, 1915. http://proxy.lib.odu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/miss-alice-hill-chittenden-says-cataclysm-will-be/docview/97632021/se-2?accountid=12967.
ALICE, HILL CHITTENDEN. “A WOMAN’S REFERENDUM: WOULD HELP LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE SUFFRAGE QUESTION PROPERLY.” New York Times (1857-1922), Feb 13, 1914. http://proxy.lib.odu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/womans-referendum/docview/97578773/se-2?accountid=12967.
By Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge. “CASE AGAINST VOTES FOR WOMEN: MRS. ARTHUR M. – DODGE GIVES REASONS WHY THE BALLOT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO WOMEN.” New York Times (18571922), Mar 07, 1915. http://proxy.lib.odu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/case-against-votes-women/docview/97705987/se-2?accountid=12967.
Catt, Carrie Chapman. “The Crisis.” Social Justice Speeches, 1916. http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/catt_the_crisis.html.
Shaw, Anna Howard. “The Fundamental Principle of a Republic.” Gifts of speech, 1915. http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html.
[1] Shaw, Anna Howard. “The Fundamental Principle of a Republic.” Gifts of speech, 1915. http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html.
[2] Shaw, Anna Howard. “The Fundamental Principle of a Republic.” Gifts of speech, 1915. http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html.
[3] Shaw, Anna Howard. “The Fundamental Principle of a Republic.” Gifts of speech, 1915. http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html.
[4] Shaw, Anna Howard. “The Fundamental Principle of a Republic.” Gifts of speech, 1915. http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html.
[5] Shaw, Anna Howard. “The Fundamental Principle of a Republic.” Gifts of speech, 1915. http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html.
[6] Catt, Carrie Chapman. “The Crisis.” Social Justice Speeches, 1916. http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/catt_the_crisis.html.
[7] Catt, Carrie Chapman. “The Crisis.” Social Justice Speeches, 1916.
[8] Catt, Carrie Chapman. “The Crisis.” Social Justice Speeches, 1916.
[9] By Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge. “CASE AGAINST VOTES FOR WOMEN: MRS. ARTHUR M. – DODGE GIVES REASONS WHY THE BALLOT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO WOMEN.” New York Times (18571922), Mar 07, 1915. http://proxy.lib.odu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/case-against-votes-women/docview/97705987/se-2?accountid=12967
[10] By Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge. “CASE AGAINST VOTES FOR WOMEN
[11] ALICE, HILL CHITTENDEN. “A WOMAN’S REFERENDUM: WOULD HELP LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE SUFFRAGE QUESTION PROPERLY.” New York Times (1857-1922), Feb 13, 1914. http://proxy.lib.odu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/womans-referendum/docview/97578773/se-2?accountid=12967
[12] ALICE, HILL CHITTENDEN. “A WOMAN’S REFERENDUM
[13] ALICE, HILL CHITTENDEN. “A WOMAN’S REFERENDUM
[14] ALICE HILL, CHITTENDEN. “Miss Alice Hill Chittenden Says Cataclysm Will be Consequence of Giving Vote to Women.” New York Times (1857-1922), Feb 14, 1915.
[15] ALICE HILL, CHITTENDEN. “Miss Alice Hill Chittenden Says Cataclysm Will be Consequence of Giving Vote to Women
write