# data[].attributes.body
When did women's rights begin?

Women's rights began in the year of 1848, with a convention in Seneca Falls, New York. In 1850, Worcester, Massachusetts hosted the nation's first convention on women's rights. The Convention's supporters have been chosen, and it outlines a number of initiatives to further the movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 1848 Seneca Falls Woman's Rights Convention marked the beginning of the women's rights movement in the United States.

The Convention recruited supporters and included many action steps to advance the movement:

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.

One hundred participants of the Convention signed this pledge.

Two weeks later a Woman's Rights Convention was held in Rochester, New York on August 2. It was followed by state and local conventions in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. The first National Woman's Rights Convention was held in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1850.

The women's right movement grew into a cohesive network of individuals who were committed to changing society.

After the Civil War national woman's suffrage organizations were formed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Women's Rights Movement - Women's Rights National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1848 Seneca Falls Woman's Rights Convention marked the beginning of the women's rights movement in the United States. The Convention recruited supporters and included many action steps to advance the movement: In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Suffragists Split Into Two Organizations

# data[].attributes.subject
The Suffragists Split Into Two Organizations

# data[].attributes.body
The National Woman Suffrage Association was founded by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The organization's main objective is to secure women's voting rights through an amendment to the United States Constitution. Separating into two groups, the suffragists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first women's rights convention is held in Seneca Falls, New York. There, 68 women and 32 men sign a Declaration of Sentiments, which modeled on the Declaration of Independence, outlines grievances and sets the agenda for the women's rights movem

# data[].attributes.body
Suffragists had national organizations since 1869, but anti-suffragists did not found their own group until 1911. Artists created political cartoons that mocked suffragists. Religious leaders spoke out against women's political activism from the pulpit. NAOWS distributed publications and organized events and state campaigns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opposing votes for women may seem surprising today, but anti-suffrage views dominated among men and women through the early twentieth century. Suffragists had national organizations since 1869, but anti-suffragists did not found their own group until 1911.

Before organizing, suffrage opponents bonded without an official institution. Artists created political cartoons that mocked suffragists. Religious leaders spoke out against women's political activism from the pulpit. Articles attacked women who took part in public life. Even without a coordinating institution, opposition to suffrage remained popular.

In the 1860s, opponents of woman suffrage began to organize locally. Massachusetts was home to leading suffrage advocates, and it was also one of the first states with an organized anti-suffrage group. In the 1880s, anti-suffrage activists joined together and eventually became known as the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women.

In 1911, Josephine Dodge, who also led a movement to establish day care centers to help working mothers, founded the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS). The NAOWS was most popular in northeastern cities. Like pro-suffrage groups, NAOWS distributed publications and organized events and state campaigns.

Just like men and women supported votes for women, men and women organized against suffrage as well. Anti-suffragists argued that most women did not want the vote. Because they took care of the home and children, they said women did not have time to vote or stay updated on politics. Some argued women lacked the expertise or mental capacity to offer a useful opinion about political issues. Others asserted that women's votes would simply double the electorate; voting would cost more without adding any new value.

By Allison Lange, Ph.D.
Fall 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opposition to Suffrage - History of U.S. Woman's Suffrage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opposing votes for women may seem surprising today, but anti-suffrage views dominated among men and women through the early twentieth century. Suffragists had national organizations since 1869, but anti-suffragists did not found their own group until 1911. Before organizing, suffrage opponents bonded without an official institution. Artists created political cartoons that mocked suffragists.

# data[].attributes.body
Virginia Minor was a pioneer of the "New Departure" movement for women's right to vote. She argued that voting was a "privilege" of national citizenship protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected her case, leaving the question of women's suffrage to the states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Chief Justice Morrison Waite

The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. . . .

It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship which the state cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.". . . .

[S]ex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect, men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. . . .

If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is therefore presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.

The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case, we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.

It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the states of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by state voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of the states, and the electors in each state must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the states, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the state. Each state must appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the state laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the state in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts.

The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. . .

It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the states at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.

When the federal Constitution was adopted, all the states with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut had constitutions of their own. These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions, we find that in no state were all citizens permitted to vote. Each state determined for itself who should have that power. . . .

In this condition of the law in respect to suffrage in the several states, it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared.

But if further proof is necessary to show that no such change was intended, it can easily be found both in and out of the Constitution. By Article IV, Section 2, it is provided that "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." If suffrage is necessarily a part of citizenship, then the citizens of each state must be entitled to vote in the several states precisely as their citizens are. . . . This, we think, has never been claimed. And again, by the very terms of the amendment we have been considering (the fourteenth), [the Constitution reduces congressional representation for states that deny African American men voting rights].

Why this if it was not in the power of the legislature to deny the right of suffrage to some male inhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of the absolute rights of citizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation to male inhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, "persons." They are counted in the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to be made, but if they were necessarily voters because of their citizenship unless clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearly no such form of words would have been selected to express the idea here indicated if suffrage was the absolute right of all citizens.

And still again, after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, [which ban racial discrimination in voting]. The Fourteenth Amendment had already provided that no state should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race &c.? . . . It is true that the United States guarantees to every state a republican form of government. It is also true that no state can pass a bill of attainder, and that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. All these several provisions of the Constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts of the instrument and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

The guaranty is of a republican form of government. No particular government is designated as republican; neither is the exact form to be guaranteed in any manner especially designated. Here, as in other parts of the instrument, we are compelled to resort elsewhere to ascertain what was intended.

The guaranty necessarily implies a duty on the part of the states themselves to provide such a government. All the states had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In all, the people participated to some extent, through their representatives elected in the manner specially provided. These governments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is therefore to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the states to provide. Thus we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form, within the meaning of that term as employed in the Constitution. . . . [A]ll the citizens of the states were not invested with the right of suffrage. In all save perhaps New Jersey, this right was only bestowed upon men, and not upon all of them. Under these circumstances, it is certainly now too late to contend that a government is not republican, within the meaning of this guaranty in the Constitution, because women are not made voters.

The same may be said of the other provisions just quoted. Women were excluded from suffrage in nearly all the states by the express provision of their constitutions and laws. If that had been equivalent to a bill of attainder, certainly its abrogation would not have been left to implication. Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change. So also of the amendment which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, adopted as it was as early as 1791. If suffrage was intended to be included within its obligations, language better adapted to express that intent would most certainly have been employed. The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has it can only be deprived of it by due process of law, but in order to claim protection, he must first show that he has the right.

But we have already sufficiently considered the proof found upon the inside of the Constitution. That upon the outside is equally effective. . . .

Certainly if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years, the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.

We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Minor v. Happersett | Constitution Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Chief Justice Morrison Waite The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.

# data[].attributes.headline
Suffragists Unite: National American Woman Suffrage Association

# data[].attributes.subject
Suffragists Unite: National American Woman Suffrage Association

# data[].attributes.body
NAWSA coordinated the national suffrage movement. The group was made up of local and state groups throughout the United States. Susan B. Anthony largely led NAWSA during Stanton's presidency (1890-1892). Catt regained the office of president in 1915 and held it through the Nineteenth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The two competing national suffrage organizations-the National Woman Suffrage Association and American Woman Suffrage Association-lasted over two decades. Suffragists worked to mend the split from the start, but were unsuccessful. Alice Stone Blackwell, the daughter of the American association leader Lucy Stone, spearheaded successful negotiations to merge the two groups in 1890.

For the first time, suffragists united behind a single national organization: the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Elizabeth Cady Stanton became the president of the new group, though she did not like the administrative duties of the office. Susan B. Anthony largely led NAWSA during Stanton's presidency (1890-1892) and her own (1892-1900). Anthony groomed protégées before she resigned, including Carrie Chapman Catt and Anna Howard Shaw. Catt held office from 1900 to 1904, and Shaw led NAWSA from 1904 to 1915. Catt regained the office of president in 1915 and held it through the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

NAWSA coordinated the national suffrage movement. The group was made up of local and state groups throughout the United States. Member dues funded annual conventions where suffragists met to discuss campaigns. Women like Rachel Foster Avery circulated newsletters with the latest suffrage updates. NAWSA had local and national press committees that wrote pro-suffrage articles published in newspapers around the country.

Not everyone was able to participate in NAWSA. Although NAWSA did not exclude African American women from membership at the national level, state and local organizations could and did choose to exclude them. Conventions held in Southern cities like Atlanta (in 1895) and New Orleans (in 1903) were segregated. NAWSA also required black women to march separately during its 1913 parade in Washington, DC. Even within this socially progressive movement, racism persisted.

By Allison Lange, Ph.D.
Fall 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National American Woman Suffrage Association - History of U.S. Woman's Suffrage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The two competing national suffrage organizations-the National Woman Suffrage Association and American Woman Suffrage Association-joined in 1890 to become the National American Woman Suffrage Associatin. Alice Stone Blackwell, the daughter of the American association leader Lucy Stone, spearheaded successful negotiations to merge the two groups.

# data[].attributes.body
In the 1880s, black reformers began organizing their own groups. In 1896, they founded the National Association of Colored Women (NACW), which became the largest federation of local black women's clubs. Unlike predominantly white suffrage organizations, NACW advocated for a wide range of reforms to improve life for African Americans. Racism persisted even in the most socially progressive movements of the era. The National American Woman Suffrage Association excluded black women from suffrage parades. The significance of black women in the movement was overlooked in the first suffrage histories, and is often overlooked today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Association of Colored Women — History of U.S. Woman’s Suffrage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black women like Sojourner Truth, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, and Harriet Tubman participated in women’s rights movements throughout the nineteenth century. In the 1880s, black reformers began organizing their own groups. In 1896, they founded the National Association of Colored Women (NACW), whic

# data[].attributes.body
Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman elected to Congress in 1916. Long a committed pacifist, she opposed possible U.S. participation in World War I. She arrived at the Capitol to be sworn in along with the other Members of the 65th Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On this date, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman elected to Congress, was sworn into the House. Rankin had campaigned as a progressive in 1916, pledging to work for a constitutional woman suffrage amendment and emphasizing social welfare issues. Long a committed pacifist, she did not hesitate to let voters know how she felt about possible U.S. participation in the European war that had been raging for two years: "If they are going to have war, they ought to take the old men and leave the young to propagate the race." She won one of Montana's At-Large seats and began her House service dramatically when Congress was called into an extraordinary April session after Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare on all Atlantic shipping. She arrived at the Capitol to be sworn in along with the other Members of the 65th Congress (1917-1919). Escorted by her Montana colleague, Representative John M. Evans, Rankin looked like "a mature bride rather than a strong-minded female," an observer wrote. "When her name was called the House cheered and rose, so that she had to rise and bow twice, which she did with entire self-possession."

Related Highlight Subjects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Swearing-In of the First Woman Elected to Congress, Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On this date, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman elected to Congress, was sworn into the House. Rankin had campaigned as a progressive in 1916, pledging to work for a constitutional woman suffrage amendment and emphasizing social welfare issues. Long a committed pacifist, she did not hesitate to let voters know how she felt about possible U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Alice Paul, American women's rights activist and suffragette, describes her hunger strike and subsequent force feeding in Holloway jail. Paul sentenced to seven months in jail after being arrested for demonstrating at Lord Mayor's banquet. She also refused to wear prison clothes or to work in protest of her imprisonment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download Image Resource

Courtesy of Library of Congress, Paul, Alice, "Alice Paul Describes Force Feeding," December 1909

Description

Alice Paul, American women's rights activist and suffragette, describes her hunger strike and subsequent force feeding in Holloway jail in this 1909 newspaper article. Paul sentenced to seven months in jail after being arrested for demonstrating at the Lord Mayor's banquet in London. She also refused to wear prison clothes or to work in protest of her and other suffragettes' imprisonment.
Full Transcript "Being Fed Through Nostrils is Described by Alice Paul, Young American Suffragette" Transcribed Excerpt from "Being Fed Through Nostrils is Described by Alice Paul, Young American Suffragette"
Source-Dependent Questions

Using three pieces of evidence from the article, explain how the author portrays Alice Paul.

Which specific parts of the article might the public react strongly to? How and why might it react in this way?

What do you think Paul hoped to accomplish by holding a hunger strike and starving herself? What do her actions have in common with others throughout history that have held hunger strikes for different causes or performed other acts of civil disobedience?

Citation Information

Paul, Alice, "Alice Paul Describes Force Feeding," December 1909. Courtesy of Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Being Fed Through Nostrils Is Described by Alice Paul, Young American Suffragette" Newspaper Article, December 1909

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Full Transcript "Being Fed Through Nostrils is Described by Alice Paul, Young American Suffragette" Transcribed Excerpt from "Being Fed Through Nostrils is Described by Alice Paul, Young American Suffragette"

# data[].attributes.body
The 19th amendment legally guarantees American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle. Many women remained unable to vote long into the 20th century because of discriminatory state voting laws. The amendment passed its final hurdle of obtaining agreement of three-fourths of the states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote.
The 19th amendment legally guarantees American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle-victory took decades of agitation and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of woman suffrage supporters lectured, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change of the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920.

Beginning in the 1800s, women organized, petitioned, and picketed to win the right to vote, but it took them decades to accomplish their purpose. Between 1878, when the amendment was first introduced in Congress, and August 18, 1920, when it was ratified, champions of voting rights for women worked tirelessly, but strategies for achieving their goal varied. Some pursued a strategy of passing suffrage acts in each state-nine western states adopted woman suffrage legislation by 1912. Others challenged male-only voting laws in the courts. Some suffragists used more confrontational tactics such as picketing, silent vigils, and hunger strikes. Often supporters met fierce resistance. Opponents heckled, jailed, and sometimes physically abused them.

By 1916, almost all of the major suffrage organizations were united behind the goal of a constitutional amendment. When New York adopted woman suffrage in 1917 and President Wilson changed his position to support an amendment in 1918, the political balance began to shift.

On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment, and 2 weeks later, the Senate followed. When Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the amendment on August 18, 1920, the amendment passed its final hurdle of obtaining the agreement of three-fourths of the states. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920, changing the face of the American electorate forever.

The campaign for woman suffrage was long, difficult, and sometimes dramatic; yet ratification did not ensure full enfranchisement. Decades of struggle to include African Americans and other minority women in the promise of voting rights remained. Many women remained unable to vote long into the 20th century because of discriminatory state voting laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote (1920)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, approved June 4, 1919.; Ratified Amendments, 1795-1992; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

# data[].attributes.body
The year that the women's rights group disbands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The National American Woman Suffrage Association records consist of correspondence, reports, press releases, scrapbooks, photographs, and printed matter concerning passage of the federal suffrage movement, the international suffrage movement and World War I activities. Correspondence includes letters from congressmen, state governors, officials of state suffrage organizations, and officials of various public and private organizations in foreign countries. Topics covered are women's suffrage, the social and political status of women, women's war work, and conditions in military field hospitals in France. Also, press releases of NAWSA and the New York State Woman Suffrage Party, clippings, and scrapbooks containing photographs, letters and printed ephemera.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
archives.nypl.org -- National American Woman Suffrage Association records

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Letters from Congressmen to Ellen Powell Thompson and Susan B. Anthony