[On December
6, 1865, the 13th
Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. So this week I’ll AmericanStudy
that crucial amendment and four others, leading up to a weekend post on three
potential amendments to come!]
On how the long,
hard road to women’s suffrage might parallel a current political journey.
A bill proposing
a Constitutional amendment that read “The right of citizens to vote shall not
be abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex” was first
introduced into the Senate (by California
Senator Arlen Sargent, a friend and ally of suffrage
activists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony) in January 1878. The
bill met with lukewarm reception at best from Sargent’s fellow Senators,
however, and never made it out of hearings in the Senate Committee on
Privileges and Elections. It would be reintroduced by one like-minded Senator
or another every year for the next 41 years before finally being successfully
proposed (as a
Joint Resolution of Congress) in May 1919, but the long road continued even
after that point. Indeed, it was not until August 18th, 1920 that
the proposed amendment received its 36th
state ratification (Tennessee, thanks in significant measure to the
private plea of the elderly mother of one state legislator), the two-thirds
majority needed to be ratified and become the 19th Amendment to the
Constitution.
It’s not just
that the suffrage amendment had such a long and uphill journey to passage and
ratification, though. After all, I would bet most thoughtful 21st
century Americans could imagine how such a sweeping political change (some 10 million new voters
were immediately enfranchised when the 19th Amendment was ratified) might
be controversial, even if nearly all of us (ahem)
would of course now support it wholeheartedly. But what is likely far more
difficult to imagine—and thus to remember, although as I argue in this
Saturday Evening Post piece we
certainly must remember it, for its own sake and as part of a long, dark
American history—is just how consistently virulent and violent was the
opposition to women’s suffrage (and specifically to those activists advocating
it). As late as March 1913, a suffrage
march organized alongside Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration was attacked by an
angry mob who cursed,
spit upon, and physically assaulted many of the (overwhelmingly female)
marchers, while DC police looked on. Suffrage activists were far from victims,
I hasten to add—it was precisely their efforts that finally secured the
vote—but these histories of violence do add one more striking layer to our
understanding of how long and hard this half-century journey was.
In 1923, three
years after the 19th Amendment’s ratification, activist Alice Paul drafted a new amendment
guaranteeing full equality of rights under the law regardless of sex. This
Equal Rights Amendment (or ERA) was introduced into Congress every year between
1923 and 1972,
when it finally passed and was sent to the states for ratification. When
the time limit for ratification expired in 1982, however, only 35
of the 38 required states had ratified the ERA; the amendment has been re-introduced into
every Congress since but has not yet been passed again. For those of us who
support the ERA, this history of stagnation, slow and partial and ultimately
incomplete progress, and repeated effort without resolution could easily feel
deeply frustrating, could turn us off to the possibilities of political
movement on such an amendment and issue. Yet without minimizing those
frustrations and realities, I would note that the history of women’s suffrage
and the road to the 19th Amendment reveal the need and value of
continuing to fight for equality and justice, even—indeed, especially—when that
journey is a long and difficult one. Those fighting to secure
passage and ratification of the ERA are doing precisely that, and they have
history on their side.
Next
AmendmentStudying tomorrow,
Ben
PS. Thoughts on
this Amendment? Others you’d highlight?
No comments:
Post a Comment