24 November 1998

As women fought for the right to vote in the early years of this century, they faced many obstacles. One of the most intriguing and puzzling anti-suffrage forces was the one constituted by other women. Today, voting is perceived as a privilege that belongs to all human beings (over 18, of course) without question. It is interesting to examine why the early 1900s saw some women who vehemently opposed the extension of this right to include their gender. The anti-suffragists were afraid of change, and this sentiment manifests itself in all the arguments they advanced against women’s suffrage. They were convinced the family would fall apart if women could vote. They viewed voting as a man’s duty and feared suffrage would overload women already burdened by their own "duties." Anti-suffragists were suspicious of the women who led the crusade to win women the vote. They characterized the suffragists as communists, among other things, and perpetuated the belief that the suffrage movement was populated with bitter spinsters who wanted to ruin domestic bliss for those who were lucky enough to achieve it. This rhetoric is evidence of the apprehension that typified many anti-suffragists.

An examination of the anti-suffrage movement would no be complete without a look at the circumstances that separated suffragists from their opposition. What kinds of women were for the vote and what kinds were not? It is important to make an attempt at discovering the dividing line between the two sides. Unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of information regarding the personal status and situations of antis. However, because there is such an abundance of material on suffragists, it is possible to construct one-half of the picture and being to infer what antis were like. Also, there are various hints scattered throughout historical texts that begin to give a sense of who the antis were. Though it cannot be stated concretely that suffragist or anti ideology went hand-in-hand with a certain race or class, the assorted possibilities can be explored and there is enough information to make some progress on the issue. Before this idea is addressed, however, several basic elements of the anti-suffrage standpoint should be investigated.

The anti-suffrage position is well articulated in an interview given by Mrs. W. Winslow Crannell that was printed in the San Fransisco Bulletin in 1898. Mrs. Crannell says that, "above all, we are opposed to suffrage because we fear that it may ruin the home" (Sherr 179). Crannell goes on to explain that if women do not vote in accordance with the men in their families, there will surely be incredible conflict in the home. The Michigan Association Opposed to Women’s Suffrage (MAOWS) voiced the same concern as it campaigned in 1913. An article in Michigan History magazine chronicles MAOWS’ activity and says that MAOWS’ members believed "the institution of home and family under suffrage strain would disintegrate" (Michigan History 44).

Intrinsic in the anti-suffrage movement’s platform was the belief that women and men would vote differently, and the conviction that women’s assertion of a contrary opinion would translate into a lack of harmony in the home. Anti-suffragists projected a world in which husbands would no longer see their wives as dear, sweet little creatures to be protected, but as enemies threatening to the status quo. In 1894, Mrs. W. W. Sherwood was quoted as saying that female suffrage would put an end to the "respect, tenderness, and chivalry" with which men treated their wives (Sherr 183). In fact, said Sherwood, men would no longer see their wives as life partners; a man’s wife would become "his opponent, his antagonist, the democrat when he is a republican" (Sherr 183). Anti-suffragists predicted that the male/female conflict instigated by suffrage would introduce such dissension into the family that divorce rates would skyrocket. In a presentation to Congress in 1871, Catharine Beecher argued that "because these changes introduce a fruitful element of discord in the existing marriage relation…(they would) increase the already alarming prevalence of divorcartners; a man’s wife would become "his opponent, his antagonist, the democrat when he is a republican" (Sherr 183). Anti-suffragists predicted that the male/female conflict instigated by suffrage would introduce such dissension into the family that divorce rates would skyrocket. In a presentation to Congress in 1871, Catharine Beecher argued that "because these changes introduce a fruitful element of discord in the existing marriage relation…(they would) increase the already alarming prevalence of divorcartners; a man’s wife would become "his opponent, his antagonist, the democrat when he is a republican" (Sherr 183). Anti-suffragists predicted that the male/female conflict instigated by suffrage would introduce such dissension into the family that divorce rates would skyrocket. In a presentation to Congress in 1871, Catharine Beecher argued that "because these s women fought for the anti-suffrage cause.

Another premise that prompted many to campaign against votes for women was the belief that voting was a man’s job and was an unreasonable addition to women’s already substantial duties. Mrs. Crannell says in her interview that women are saddled with natural responsibilities and cannot bear to being doing men’s duties as well: "If we fulfill these (women’s) duties there is no possibility of taking on extra responsibilities of his" (Sherr 179). Crannell’s argument is illuminated by a statement against women’s suffrage that was presented to Congress in 1871. The passage indicates that some women do not want to do more work than they are already doing: "As women, we find a full measure of duties, cares, and responsibilities devolving upon us, and we are therefore unwilling to bear other and heavier burdens" (Sherr 181). Some argued that women regarded the vote not as a privilege, but as a tool of oppression that would bring hardship. The Michigan Association Opposed to Women’s Suffrage went so far as to say that "the burden imposed by suffrage would cause women physical suffering" (McHaney 44). To many, the prospect of voting looked like more work and not at all like an increase in freedom.

The contention that voting was a man’s burden often included qualifiers that emphasized the importance of women in their feminine sphere. That is, the world that women had traditionally inhabited was put forth as the place where they belonged. The role they traditionally played were trumpeted as vital to society. In its statement of purpose, the Illinois Association Opposed to the Extension of Suffrage to Women explains that a woman’s potential as a human being can best be reached when she stays on her established turf: "We believe…that it is in the domain of domestic affections, of ethics, and of religion, that the development of the highest womanly capacities is to be found" (O’Neill 57). Anti-suffragists believed that women were most useful to society when they functioned within the limits of what was conventionally defined as woman’s sphere. Each woman’s "filial, uxorial, maternal, professional, and civic responsibilities define(d) and limit(ed) her identity as an individual" (Sherr ix). Women’s personal needs were subordinate to the needs of society. Therefore, anti-suffragists claimed that "women had a valuable social role simply because they were women" (Stevenson 80). The duties that women performed for society were considered so important that there was no need for them to expand their role to include voting.

The fears that anti-suffragists harbored regarding the societal changes that suffrage might have prompted provoked a rash of negative feelings toward suffragists. This malevolent attitude manifested itself as a stigmatization of suffragists. Women fighting for the vote were characterized in a number of unfavorable ways. Often, their critics "resorted to…charges of lesbianism, communism and socialism, or disgruntled spinsterhood" (Tarrant x). The myth that developed around suffragists gave their opponents ammunition. Even though there was no real basis for the charges leveled against suffragists, anti-suffragists exploited and publicized connections between suffrage and a number of socially unacceptable movements. The rumors began to significantly color public opinion; this is evidenced in Mrs. Crannell’s interview. When asked for her thoughts on Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Crannell responds, "I do not like Miss Anthony. She believes that women should not marry, and that if women do marry they should not bear children" (Sherr 179). A footnote to Mrs. Crannell’s interview says that her statement regarding Anthony’s beliefs is inaccurate. Clearly, there was a stereotypical set of ideas usually attributed to suffragists that painted them in an unseemly light, and led uninformed anti-suffragists to believe that their views were more extreme than they really were.

Suffragists were accused of fostering ties to Communism and sucking naive women into their organization with the intention of using them to further the communist cause. An article titled "Are Women’s Clubs ‘Used’ by Bolshevists?" reads: "It is never the policy of the leaders to permit the rank and file members to know what their ultimate objective is…their leaders…are often in communication with the fountains of ‘red propaganda’…" (Tarrant 3). Suffrage groups were discredited by their alleged link to radical groups. A notion was passed around that women’s clubs were more for promoting the communist ideal than they were for achieving votes for women. This made the women who joined suffrage organizations look like tools for the furthering of the Communists’ agenda: "some intelligent women are now convinced that the…legislative program being sponsored by women’s organizations is a menace and that the women of America are being used for a purpose that is concealed from them" (Tarrant 3). Certainly, some suffrage leaders were connected to radical causes, but this passage indicated that the entire women’s movement is an extension of Communism. Communism was feared and women’s suffrage was feared; it only makes sense that one should be linked to the other in an effort to deflate them both.

The arguments advanced by women on both sides of the suffrage issue are well documented, but there is a disparity between the amount of individual attention attributed to suffragists vs. anti-suffragists. Perhaps it is because the suffragists were the ones who ultimately triumphed, maybe it is because they were unorthodox and fascinating women who challenged tradition; whatever the case, history has paid much more attention to the lives and personalities of suffragists than it has to those of the antis. This is a frustrating reality because a significant part of understanding the anti-suffragists is knowing who they were and where they came from. Certainly, their names and organizations are known, but information regarding their backgrounds, education, family life, and social status is hard to come by. Without these vital facts, it is difficult to pinpoint what separated suffragists from antis other than their opinions on woman suffrage.

In his book Feminism in America, William L. O’Neill gives voice to the fact that anti-suffragists remain somewhat of a mystery. His uncertainty of their motivations is obvious as he makes a couple of blatant guesses: "Perhaps they suffered from deep personality disorders or status conflicts, but until we know more about them, little can be added to what has already been said" (O’Neill 67). The items that O’Neill refers to as those "that have already been said" are the facts that anti-suffragists tended to be "addicted to Victorian formulas" and their efforts were reflective of their statuses as "earnest social reformers" (O’Neill 57). These details begin to sketch the shape of the typical anti-suffragist. The prevailing notion that antis were irrational and unreasonable is a result of historians’ partiality toward suffragists, writes O’Neill. In fact, the antis were often lucid as they defended their claims. This is evidenced by the Remonstrance, the official paper of the Massachusetts AOFESW (Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women). The Remonstrance was "a dignified, sensible organ full of material supporting its basic charge that the vote would not do for women what the suffragists claimed for it" (O’Neill 62-63). Thus, the antis were not the raving lunatics history sometimes makes them out to be, they were intelligent people who could logically support their arguments.

This information is not nearly enough to give complete comprehension of the origins of the anti-suffrage movement, but when it is combined with what is known about suffragists, the picture beings to clear. The evidence suggests that the dividing line between suffragists and antis may be drawn in one of three ways (or in a combination of three ways). First, there is a definite tendency of the suffragists to be of the middle class and of the antis to be more elite. Thus, the difference between the two camps may originate from a class discrepancy. The second possibility addresses the geographical location where each side tends to center itself. The suffragists seem to have gleaned much of their perspective from childhoods in the West or influenced heavily by the Western ideas, whereas antis tend to have originated in the East. It is therefore possible that suffragists and antis think differently about suffrage because they were raised in different places. The final possibility is that ideology alone divided the two groups of women. It could be that suffragists believed in the right to vote without regard to their social standing or area of residence. Antis may have held their beliefs for no other reason than they simply felt that way; there may be no tenuous factors that obviously influenced their opinions. It is not possible to discern with complete accuracy which of these hypotheses (or combination of them) best explains the contrast between the antis and the suffragists. Each of them must be explored and considered not as fact, but simply as theory.

The idea of suffragists separated from their opponents along class lines has a lot of validity. The suffrage movement was propagated by a large contingent of middle class women whose humble origins often meant that their mother worked as much as their fathers to keep the family going. The roles that their mothers played were carefully noted by the future suffragists and influenced their perceptions of women’s place in the world.

Crystal Eastman, a committed feminist and Columbia University graduate, was one of four children born into a "middle-class, small town American family" (Showalter 88). When Eastman’s father, a preacher, fell ill and was unable to work, her mother supported the family with a teaching job and was eventually ordained as a Congregational minister. Genevieve Taggard also grew up in a financially modest environment and with a mother who worked outside the home. Taggard’s parents were both missionaries, and though her mother had three children, "she gave most of her day to teaching" (Showalter 64). The suffragist theme of middle-class background continues with Carrie Chapman Catt. Catt was born on her family’s farm and spent her childhood surrounded by farm life. Though Catt’s mother, Maria, didn’t pursue a career, she did attend college. Maria went to Oread Collegiate Institute in Worchester, Massachusetts, a town that was a center for feminist activity at the time. Maria’s tendencies rubbed off on her daughter, giving Catt a love for reading and fostering her "precocious feminism" (Van Voris 4). Though middle-class farm life was sometimes hard on Catt, financial strains were much more pronounced in the life of Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Gilman was raised by a single mother after her father abandoned the family when she was 13 (Ceplair 9). Gilman’s mother was left "alone, with two children, no money, and no marketable skills" (Ceplair 9). Gilman and her family moved 19 times in 18 years and suffered chronically from debt (Ceplair 10). She watched as her mother scrambled to make ends meet and noted with admiration that she succeeded. In keeping with the apparent trend of suffragists’ backgrounds, Gilman was clearly middle-class.

While the suffragists leaned toward a more modest economic existence, the antis were prone to wealth. This characteristic of financial affluence is exemplified by the Massachusetts AOFESW (Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women) which was made up of "eminent and wealthy members" (O’Neill 63). Many of the women who organized into anti-suffrage groups were members of the women’s Club Movement, which was characterized by its wealthy patrons. The Club Movement was known to have anti-suffrage inclinations and "had been notoriously suspicious of suffrage organizations" (Van Voris 121). The first women’s club, Sorosis, was formed in 1868 when several women attempted to get tickets to a dinner celebrating Charles Dickens’ reading tour, and were treated with contempt (Croly 14). The women banded together in protest and founded Sorosis. During the club’s early days, one member "announced her immediate departure for Boston, where she was to attend the Charles Dickens lectures on behalf of the New York Tribune," and asked that another woman take over her job a club secretary during her absence (Croly 16). Clearly, the members of Sorosis were upper class women. They were attending lectures by a renowned author (tickets to such events were a luxury that not everyone could afford) and travelling to other prominent cities representing well-respected publications. Women like Catt and Gilman lived in a completely different social stratification. Because the women’s Club Movement laid the groundwork and often provided members for the anti-suffrage crusade, it is possible to see where the antis- predisposition for wealth originated. The contrast between the financial status of the women in Sorosis and the Massachusetts AOFESW and women like Catt, Taggard, Eastman, and Gilman is apparent.

Another factor that might explain the division between suffragists and their opponents is their respective regions of location. The vote was awarded to women in western states before it was granted to women in the East (O’Neill 60). This is reflective of a concentration of suffrage activity in the West and Midwest and a conglomeration of anti-suffrage sentiment in the East. The women’s Club Movement, which gave rise to many anti-suffrage organizations, originated in New York City. The Club Movement has its roots in women’s religious groups, the oldest of which was started in Baldwinsville, NY (Croly 8). That organization was called the "Female Charitable Society" and was the first "purely women society in this country" (Croly 8). Thus, the anti-suffrage movement sprang from an established tradition of women’s groups based on the East Coast. The suffragists, however, tended to be from the West or have parents who were raised there. Catt was born in Wisconsin and grew up in Iowa (Van Voris 4), and Taggard spent her childhood in Hawaii (Showalter 62). Gilman and Eastman were raised in the East, but their parents came from farther west (Showalter 87, Ceplair 10). There is not enough evidence to make a strong case for the likelihood of regional differences to have precipitated the division between suffragists and antis. Nevertheless, it is a possibility and should be considered.

The third potential explanation for the conflict between suffragists and antis is that their disagreement stemmed from an ideological basis. This possibility holds that their converse opinions about suffrage resulted only from a difference in beliefs and had nothing to do with external factors like location and class. The suffragists were liberal women who felt that female suffrage was deserved as a basic human right. The were "in rebellion against worn-out tradition" (Van Voris 121) and wanted "recognition of the right of women to share in settlement of questions concerning the lives of individuals and nations" (Van Voris 126). The suffragists wanted the role of women to take on new dimensions and allow privileges that had previously been granted only to men. Crystal Eastman wanted the rights that would permit her to have a career, but also wanted to have a family. She writes, "I grew up confidently expecting to have a profession and earn my own living, and also confidently expecting to be married and have children" (Showalter 88). Genevieve Taggard came from a standpoint that questioned the viability of conservative beliefs in general. Her childhood in Hawaii was steeped in the culture of "an interracial, uninhibited society" which provided her with "a radical perspective on the values of small-town America and helped her resist the pressures to conform" (Showalter 62).

While the suffragists saw the vote as something due to them as a recognition of their status as valuable human beings, the antis felt that suffrage was simply out of the female sphere. Their ideological foundation came out of the women’s Club Movement which believed that women should subordinate their individuality to the needs of society and devote themselves to the application of feminine ideals. Club women maintained a doctrine "of love and service and devotion of the individual for the good of the whole" (Croly xi). Anti-suffragists saw women as forces for nurturing and peace in society and felt that it would be beneficial if these qualities came into play on a public level. They wanted to extend women’s sphere beyond the family so that they could "maternalize" society and counteract the evils brought about by patriarchy. As the world became more violent and selfish, "it became necessary that the quickening of conscience, the widening of sympathy…should be accompanied by a corresponding growth in knowledge and a love beyond the narrow confines of the family and church" (Croly 11). Anti-suffragists were not arguing that women should stay within the boundaries of the home, they believed women could be useful in the public sphere. However, they was female involvement in societal change as an extension of the woman’s role in the home, and that role did not extend so far as to includeecessary Ek Fk Gk Jk Kk fk ýùöòöðýíýíýíýíýíýíýùèýíýíýíýíýíýíýíýíýíýíýíýíýâàâà âàâÜâà ýÚ u
P a  P
u
D P UZ^
c$ ^
c c$ Zc$ h
Zc$ UZc$ c <6   fk € h
Ðà

considered men’s job. Lastly, anti-suffragists’ fears culminated in a perception of suffragists in a false light. Suffragists were called communists and angry spinsters in an effort to discredit their cause.

The chasm that separated suffragists and antis cannot be traced to a specific origin due to a lack of evidence. However, the evidence that does exist suggests three possibilities. First, women could have been divided according to their class affiliations; the middle class women were for suffrage and the upper class women were against it. There is enough information to make this a strong likelihood, but there isn’t enough to declare it fact. Secondly, it is conceivable that suffragists and antis were distinguished from one another according to their geographical location. It seems that most suffrage activity originated in the West while anti-suffrage feeling emanated from the East. This possibility is difficult to support because some well known suffragists were raised in the East. Their parents were from the West and thus imparted to them Western values, but the fact that they were raised in the East complicates the argument. Third and finally, suffragists and antis may have been different from one another only because they were functioning from different ideological basises. Suffragists believed it was a woman’s right to vote because voting is a privilege that belongs to all respectable adults. Antis saw women as having a role in society, but the role they envisioned was simply an expansion of the role women already played. They did not consider suffrage to be an appropriate addition to the female sphere. One of these possibilities may be more likely than the others, but it is most probable that a combination of the three is responsible for separating the suffragists from the antis.

Bibliography

"Are Women’s Clubs ‘Used’ by Bolshevists?" The Dearborn Independent. 15 March 1924

Antifeminism in America: Redefining the New Woman 1920-1963.

Angela Howard and Sasha Ranae Adams Tarrant, eds. Garland Publishing, Inc.:

New York, 1997.

Carey, Henry R. "This Two-Headed Monster - The Family." Anti-Feminism in America:

Redefining the New Woman, 1920-1963. Angela Howard and Sasha Ranae

Adams Tarrant, eds. Garland Publishing, Inc.: New York, 1997.

Ceplair, Larry, ed. Charlotte Perkins Gilman: A Nonfiction Reader. Columbia

University Press: New York, 1991.

Croly, Jennie June. The History of the Women’s Club Movement in America. Henry G.

Allen & Co.: New York, 1898.

McHaney, Sharon. "Securing the Sacred Right to Vote." Michigan History 1991 75(2):

38-45.

O’Neill, William L. Feminism in America: A History. Transaction Publishers: New

Brunswick, 1989.

Sherr. Lynn. Failure is Impossible. Random House: New York, 1995.

Showalter, Elaine ed. These Modern Women: Autobiographical Essays from the

Twenties. The Feminist Press: New York, 1989.

Stevenson, Louise. "Women Anti-Suffragists in the 1915 Massachusetts Campaign."

New England Quarterly March 1979: 80-93.

Tarrant Angela and Sasha Ranae Adams Howard, ed. Antifeminism in America: Reaction

to the Modern Women’s Movement, 1963 to the Present. Garland Publishing,

Inc.: New York, 1997.

Van Voris, Jacqueline. Carrie Chapman Catt: A Public Life. The Feminist Press at The

City University of New York: New York, 1987.