The Fight for Women's Suffrage

In early America, gender and property ownership determined voter eligibility. New York followed the same protocol until an 1821 state Constitution Convention changed that by enfranchising all white adult males. The convention also extended suffrage to freemen (Martin Van Buren voted in favor), provided they held $250 of property, a near impossibility for the majority at that time.

Convention debates over property requirements were extensive with several proposals offered to contain exceptions. Martin Van Buren argued against them, believing this move would lead to universal suffrage, which he felt the “people were not prepared for.”

The above is a rare statement by him on the issue of suffrage, but one that sheds light on the question, “Would Martin Van Buren have supported granting women the right to vote?”

It is impossible to answer definitively due to lack of documentation. Van Buren was a private man, choosing to keep personal thoughts out of communications. Written demonstrations of his personal beliefs are scarce; diaries and journals do not exist, and few personal letters survived.

Nonetheless, he maintained a deep appreciation of the intellect of women. Perhaps he would have supported non-violent efforts for the right to vote even if he did not endorse women’s suffrage.

 

Angelica Singleton Van Buren, the president's daughter-in-law

Two of the Most Influential Women in Martin Van Buren's Life

Van Buren was widowed before his career soared to a national level, meaning he and his four sons moved into the White House as bachelors. The first to alter their marital status was his eldest son Abraham, who married Sarah Angelica Singleton during his father's second year of presidency. Angelica filled the role of America's first lady through the final years of the Van Buren administration; at twenty- one, she had Washington's gentry marveling at how splendidly she handled the situation.

Angelica's life was sculpted to hold such a position. She was born into one of South Carolina's wealthiest plantation holding families, permitting her an education at Philadelphia's prestigious Madame Grelaud's French Boarding School.

Renowned for its rigorous academic standards, as well as training in the cultural arts, the institution ensured students left as cultivated young women prepared to move easily amongst the privileged societies of Europe and America.

Angelica's upbringing instilled strong confidence in expressing an opinion. Personal letters often verge on cutting and show prejudice, but she refrained from stating these opinions in a public forum. The only instance found is in a letter which does show a defense of the south’s institution of slavery. She described comments made by two English women during a castle visit in Switzerland. The women pointed to some shackles and made mention of America’s use of enslaved people. Angelica responded quickly by reminding the gentle ladies of similar treatment the British inflicted on white men.

Her political sentiments appear publicly through charitable deeds; particularly her work in the north on behalf of prisoners. Her stance on the Civil War is unknown, but she did help raise funds to purchase blankets for Confederate soldiers confined at the notorious Elmira prison.

Angelica was residing in New York City when Elizabeth Cady Stanton presented 'The Declaration of Sentiments' at the first Women's Rights Convention held in Seneca Falls. It is unlikely she attended, and records do not suggest otherwise, nor do we know if she held a desire to be present at the convention. Like her father-in-law, Angelica did not leave behind documentation of her thoughts on suffrage.

Brought up as a member of Antebellum aristocracy, Angelica seemed to agree with the expectations placed upon women of her standing, though a traumatic event in her beloved sister's life may have forced a realization of the limitations white southern women faced - regardless of class.

Videau Marion Singleton Deveaux's marriage to the Reverend Augustus L. Converse was her second. Reverend Converse not only conducted the wedding ceremony for her sister Angelica to Abraham, but also Marion's first marriage to Robert Deveaux.

Mr. Deveaux hailed from a wealthy plantation family with a famous military past. He died eight years after marriage, leaving her with several children and a significant fortune. Marion Deveaux was widowed for six years when she accepted Reverend Converse’s proposal. The engagement was not one her family endorsed, as Reverend Converse was eighteen years her senior.

Mrs. Deveaux entered the marriage with control over the fortune inherited from her previous husband. In 1853, she relinquished part of it to Converse. Documentation shows soon after Mrs. Deveaux released control of her wealth, Converse began to regularly and violently abuse her.

In 1854, Mrs. Deveaux sought protection in her sister’s New York home and pursued a divorce. South Carolina denied the petition. A $24, 250 settlement with the reverend in 1857 provided Mrs. Deveaux with a formal separation and restoration of personal monetary control of her first husband’s wealth. For the remainder of her life, Mrs. Deveaux never ventured far from the safety of her family, while her sister eventually stopped visitation altogether. Perhaps Angelica’s choice to remain north was a quiet commentary and rebuke of the patriarchal society that governed the Antebellum south.

One can only wonder if, after her sister’s experience, Angelica would have hoped for suffrage to force protections for southern women of her class. However, if she held an inclination to vote and was able, it is highly probable she would have cast votes supporting the institution of enslavement.

Angelica not only carried out the role of first lady during Van Buren’s administration but later assisted in setting up Lindenwald’s household and managed it while visiting and residing there with Abraham and their children. On occasion, the daughter of Van Buren’s late wife’s sister, Christina Cantine, stepped in to assist.

Van Buren held a fatherly affection for Miss Cantine, his favor is most evident in an often-used reference of her as his ‘excellent niece.’ The two remained close until his death. Though their views fell on opposite directions of the political spectrum, Van Buren respected his niece’s opinions and listened when she expressed them, even if directed at him.

When Van Buren’s political career began to rise, he asked his niece to serve as hostess of his home. She declined the offer. A staunch supporter of both the abolitionist and temperance movement she felt such a position opposed her religious and personal sensitivities.

Miss Cantine’s views on suffrage are like those of her family, unknown. Given she held strong pro-abolitionist and temperance views, it is plausible she may have supported the suffrage cause, as the emergence of the fight to enfranchise women was an evolution born out of both movements.

Sentiments on suffrage belonging to the Van Buren women who were alive during the fight for the vote follow the rest of the Van Buren family, undocumented. His granddaughters split their time until their deaths between the U.S and abroad, and the lives of his great-granddaughters are relatively unknown.

 

The Early Suffrage Movement in America

The suffrage movement in America had two distinct phases. Follow any timeline covering the fight for women’s suffrage in the United States, and it becomes clear it was not short, easy, or even united.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organized the first convention to discuss the rights of women at Seneca Falls in 1848. Only a handful of men were present at the convention, with Frederick Douglass as the only Black man to attend. The gathering spawned a movement for women’s suffrage that grew strength until the Civil War put a halt to efforts.

The end of the Civil War again drew Douglass, Mott and Stanton together with Susan B. Anthony, whom collectively founded the American Equal Rights Association (AERA) in 1866. The organization lasted only four years when it experienced an exodus of female leaders after the proposal the 15th Amendment, which was to enfranchise Black men while upholding the disenfranchisement of all women.

Stanton severed ties with Douglass, left the AERA in 1869 and formed the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) with Anthony. Stanton and Anthony chose to exclude black women from their organization and overall fight for suffrage. However, this never dissuaded Douglass of his support for the enfranchisement of all American women.

Social activist Julia Ward Howe and Lucy Stone (Massachusetts’s first degreed woman – from Oberlin College in Ohio) chose to support Douglass and the 15th Amendment, but in wanting universal suffrage formed the American Women Suffrage Association (AWSA).

The women eventually overcame their differences and rejoined forces in 1890 to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). This alliance did not force a softening of racist sentiment against African American women, and they continued to be excluded from membership.

 

Annie Kenney and Christabel Pankhurst, two leaders of the suffrage movement in England

Meanwhile, Across the Pond

The United Kingdom's suffrage movement began roughly the same time as that in America. Its most notable leaders of the movement began activity in the early 1900s.

Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst and her two daughters; Christabel, who became a public figure for the movement in her own right and Sylvia, who was disowned later in life by her mother for taking up strong socialist views and having a child out of wedlock. The Pankhursts were, and continue to be, known for their militant tactics; it is through them Alice Paul and Lucy Burns drew ideas and strength when implementing new methods to promote the suffrage cause in America.

Alice Paul was the first woman to enroll in the Master of Economics program at the University of Birmingham, England. While attending a lecture in Birmingham by Christabel Pankhurst, the pacifist was appalled by the angry counter-protests of her male classmates. Pankhurst was spat on, mocked and it is said even had a dead mouse thrown at her.

The jarring scene at the lecture moved Paul to join her British sisters in their fight for the vote. Soon after, Miss Paul was amongst those arrested while attempting to address the Prime Minister. It would not be her first, with more to come that would include over forty forced feedings by British prison officials during in-house hunger strikes.

The day of Paul’s arrest was also the day she met fellow American, Lucy Burns. Paul and Burns remained active within the British movement before returning stateside in 1910 and 1912 respectively, together they would flip the American suffrage movement on its head.

In must be noted: to further diminish suffragist efforts, U.K. newspapers began to reference women pressing for the vote as ‘Suffragettes’, as the addition of ‘ette’ at the end of a noun is used in the French language to suggest a smallness of something. This phrase was picked up by American Journalists and used as a form of mockery. The term “suffragette,” therefore, was not used by those in support of the cause.

 

The March 3, 1913 Procession

Now stateside, Paul and Burns joined the NAWSA to pass the Susan B. Anthony amendment, a proposal to enfranchise women on a national level. NAWSA’s only stipulation was the pair must raise all funds needed and under no circumstance were they to bill the organization. Differences over a state by state referendum versus a national amendment, and money, became the impetus of a later parting from the NAWSA by Paul and Burns.

To force a recognition of the many women in America wanting suffrage Paul and Burns organized a procession down Pennsylvania Avenue the day before Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration. They asked attorney Inez Milholland to lead it - she did, draped in a cape and wearing a crown while atop a white horse. Washington had yet to see a gathering of suffragists on such a grand scale, and never one consisting of women drawn from cities, towns and villages throughout the country.

The number of participant registrations for the parade grew exponentially within a short time. When Ida B. Wells wrote to Paul informing her the Alpha Suffrage Club of Chicago wished to join the procession, a reduction of participant numbers threatened the event. The idea of marching alongside black women had white southern delegates refusing to participate.

Rather than lose a large number of southern participants or exclude the presence of African -American women, Paul took a rather Van Burenesque approach; taking a neutral position removed her from the responsibility of defending African American applicants by neither encouraging nor discouraging their participation. However, by doing so she effectively bowed to the pressing of southern racism.

On the day of the parade, attempts at racially segregating the women proved unsuccessful. African American women marched with their chosen groups, including twenty-plus Delta Sigma Theta sorority sisters from Howard University alongside others led by Mary Church Terrell. Like Ida B. Wells, who slipped in mid-way to join the white Illinois contingent, these proud women rose above the racism and marched with magnificent presence.

The lack of police protection left procession attendees vulnerable to intimidation and physical assault. Secretary of War Henry Stimson authorized Calvary troops to assist but their arrival was too late. This flagrant violation of the marchers’ constitutional rights prompted a post-procession congressional investigation which concluded that “uniformed and…special police acted with more or less indifference while on duty.” A move to show accountability was the forced resignation of the chief of police.

 

Suffragist Lucy Burns imprisoned following White House protests

An Organizational Split

Paul and Burns worked for NAWSA under a subsidiary group called the Congressional Committee. The Congressional Committee focused on a national suffrage amendment (Susan B. Anthony Amendment). NAWSA took a different approach to suffrage by seeking a state by state referendum (The Shafroth-Palmer Amendment).

Paul and Burns solved the monetary and amendment issue by enlarging the small Congressional Committee through the formation of the Congressional Union. Within eight years they raised over $750,000.

Due to the early mandate by NAWSA that the group raise their funds, the Congressional Union were under no obligation to share what they raised with NAWSA, nor did they. The only exception was the payment of a hall rented for an annual NAWSA convention. One outcome of that convention ended up changing the course of pro-suffrage association history.

The December 1913 NAWSA annual convention oversaw an alteration of the association’s constitutional rules regarding subsidiary group classification and dues.

A suggestion made to the Congressional Union was to resign their classification under NAWSA and resubmit their application for a new classification, the benefit being lower annual dues paid to the organization. The Congressional Union complied – NAWSA rejected their application. Paul and Burns had only one option; become independent.

The group remained the Congressional Union until 1916 when it became the National Women’s Party (NWP). The newly formed organization set out to enfranchise women through a federal amendment by getting a pro-suffrage presidential candidate elected.

With the 1916 presidential campaign looming, Paul announced the NWP’s support for the Republican candidate, New Yorker Charles Hughes. Paul then sent women out west to convince their enfranchised sisters to support Hughes.

“Anti” leaders followed behind, and as America’s entrance into the war in Europe seemed likely, tailored arguments that the “pro’s” push for a candidate approving of a federal suffrage amendment was an eastern women’s cause at a time of national concern.

Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson pulled a move Van Buren would have recognized, taking a personal stance that made southern voters grumble without losing their support. He admitted to personally supporting women’s suffrage but called it a state’s rights issue and refused to endorse a federal amendment for suffrage.

Suffrage in the eyes of western women came second to the possibility of American involvement in the war abroad. Wilson was reelected. Paul moved the bar with a decision to target him explicitly using tactics likened to those employed by suffrage organizations throughout the United Kingdom.

In January 1917, NWP members launched a non-stop picket effort in front of the White House. The protest drew curious onlookers and even empathy, until three months later when the country entered the war in Europe. What little support the organization has for their cause dried up. The protests suddenly had citizens viewing their picket line as a sign of disrespect.

Between the cold Washington D.C. weather and the war, picket numbers dropped. Paul reached out Mary Church Terrell who was forced to look beyond Paul’s oft refusal to address racism within suffrage organizations and used the picket line as an opportunity to capitalize on national publicity.

Terrell was aware southern democrats would never agree to a federal amendment enfranchising women, particularly Black women. Their passage of Jim Crow laws purposely continued white supremacist dominance throughout the post-war south, but she found a way around their refusal by placing hope in Black men.

The passage of the 15th Amendment granted Black men the vote. She encouraged African American women to join the NWP picketers in the hope of drawing support for a federal amendment and suffrage vote via Black male voters.

Arrests of picketers began in June and on into November. One arrested during the November “Night of Terror” along with Lucy Burns was Dorothy Day, the later founder of the Catholic Worker.

To protest what they viewed as a violation of their civil rights, those imprisoned in the Occoquan Workhouse went on a hunger strike. Prison officials had the strikers forced fed. The methods used to subdue the women were barbaric. When the public read of their maltreatment, they demanded an end to the practice. All suffragists were released a few weeks later and given a pin by Paul depicting jail cell bars.

 

Suffragists conducted a "Suffrage Hike" from New York City to Albany in December 1912, covering 170 miles and passing through Columbia County

Library of Congress

New York State Suffragists Take the Hearts of Columbia County

Beginning with the Seneca Falls convention in 1848, New York women often led the way in their fight to obtain suffrage in America. Their methods were successful:

• 1910 - The Women’s Political Union held the first suffrage parade in New York City.

• 1911 - The suffrage parade in NYC drew approximately 70,000 attendees.

• 1912 - The number of NYC suffrage parade watchers increased to approximately ½ million.

• 1913 - Two months after the Washington procession, 10,000 women marched for suffrage in NYC.

• 1915 - 40,000 women joined the NYC march during a pivotal year for women’s suffrage in New York.
  

In 1912, the New York State Women’s Suffrage Association served as a head organization for 450 affiliate groups boasting a membership of approximately 350,000 throughout the state.

That same year had New York suffragists in the spotlight for endeavors other than parades. The NAWSA hailed “General Rosalie Jones’ and fellow suffrage supporters as they set off on foot that mid- December for a pilgrimage from Manhattan to Albany.

Seven finally arrived in Hudson during blizzard-like conditions on Christmas Eve. Undaunted, they soldiered on to Stockport Center for the night. Two residents of the town offered a welcome initially misconstrued as a threat. One resident lit a rocket firework that grazed a ‘pilgrim,’ while another resident fired his shotgun into the air as they entered Stockport center.

The next eve they stayed in Valatie before arriving at their destination, Albany, to present a petition to Governor William Sultzer. Interestingly, this governor, supportive of the suffrage movement, was the only New York governor to ever be impeached.

The ‘pilgrim’ contingent expressed their encounters with citizens along the way as cordial, with those in disagreement as being non-aggressive. One of the marchers and a reporter covering the walk fell in love, he proposed to her on boxing day. Their experience was fortunate as Albany had one of the largest active anti-suffrage organizations in the state.

 

Anti-suffrage propaganda frequently depicted families abandoned by women and men being "forced" to do housework

The Anti-Suffrage Movement in Upstate New York

The New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NYSAOWS), initially known as the New York State Association Opposed to the Extension of the Suffrage to Women, was mobilized in 1895 with a quarterly publication beginning the same year as the ‘pilgrim’ marches – 1912.

NYSAOWS’ efforts set them as the largest anti-suffrage association throughout New York. Still, it was not the only organization opposing the vote for women. Many of the capitol region’s gentlewomen joined the Albany Anti-Suffrage Association (AASA). The majority of these “Antis,” as they were known, were married to men who wielded massive political and/or economic power around upstate New York and beyond.

In 1914 the AASA’s vice-president was Mary Magrane Glynn. Her husband Martin, a tavern keeper from Valatie, rose to become New York’s first governor who was a practicing Catholic and of Irish heritage. What is worth noting about the couple is that Martin Glynn held opposite views of Mrs Glynn - he supported women’s suffrage.

The AASA addressed the men at one New York Constitutional Convention through a letter expressing reasons why the vote must not be extended to women. The AASA held the view that voting is a political privilege, not a right, and as protections for women continued to be secured through law, women's suffrage was unnecessary.

The letter pointed to specific protections passed centering on property, money and children. It is important to note the women of the AASA were of the wealthier class. They did not work outside the home for a living. Their arguments were based on protections for their economic and marital situation, leaving out a large sector of women desperate for the vote.

Female workers were subjected to conditions most members of the AASA could not fathom, particularly those employed within the manufacturing industry. Anti-suffrage proponents took advantage of the influx of immigrant women from Eastern European and Mediterranean countries, primarily filling manufacturing positions, by weaponizing both their countries of birth and social status to portray the fight for suffrage as Socialist ideology.

Socialist organizations throughout the country did promote women’s suffrage. However, the fight for suffrage was not solely a socialist effort. Suffrage for female industrial workers would grant them an opportunity to force workplace protections beyond those instituted after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in Greenwich Village, New York on March 25, 1911. Many labored unprotected in factories and domestic positions under the daily realities of physical, emotional and sexual exploitation.

“Anti” organizations not only attempted to instill fear amongst the general population by attacking the politics and ethnicities of suffrage supporters but appealed to their bigotry. Cartoon postcards implied enfranchising women would force a loss of femininity, and even lead to lesbianism.

The effort to stop the enfranchisement of women by associations such as the AASA also included arguments that enfranchising women would take them out of the home. “Anti” propaganda is replete with sexist images and cautionary phrases to stir such controversy.

It highlights something disingenuous about their argument. Female anti-suffragists not only held meetings and penned articles for pamphlets, but their anti-suffrage efforts required the help of many away from their domestic spheres.

Leaders of the anti-suffrage movement left their families behind to go on speaking tours throughout the country as heartily as suffrage rights supporters. Pro-suffrage publications often mentioned this fact to point out the hypocrisy of their opposition.

 

Symbols of the Fight: On Both Sides

The adoption of symbols by suffragists, as was done in the United Kingdom, helped unify the cause in America. Alice Paul credited Mrs. John J. White with suggesting the use of; purple, white and gold as recognizable colors of the national fight for women’s suffrage, though variations on how these three colors came into use do differ from Alice Paul’s account.

The tricolors appeared on the sashes of suffrage supporters and showed predominantly in the banners they carried. The uniform of the day for protest processions? White dresses often topped off with an application of red lipstick in a show of defiance.

Red, the color of lipstick conservatives at the time attributed to women preferring a way of life viewed as unconventional. Elizabeth Arden helped promote the lip color both for the cause and company profits by passing out tubes to participants during New York suffrage parades. The wearing of red lipstick remains a traditional sign of quiet resistance for protesters around the world.

Just like their sisters in the United Kingdom, American suffrage supporters employed their domestic skills to persuade the general public that enfranchising women would not force a loss of femininity. Banners included exquisite embroidery appliques, and the publishing of cookbooks by groups such as the Equal Franchise Association hoped to prove culinary skills were not lost to the cause, while simultaneously raised needed funds for the effort.

White roses appeared as a tangible feminine symbol for the suffrage movement, though some preferred the sunflower. Pink roses were the “antis” favored choice of flower until August 1915 when red became their dominant color. The release of a supportive song titled “The Anti-Suffrage Rose,” with a composition sheet cover featuring one in full bloom prompted the change.

Symbols were also chosen for hyperbole and highlighted in printed material issued by both sides of the argument. A popular image was the cat; the difference was how organizations portrayed the animal.

The “antis” used the image of a domestic cat to symbolize the woman at home while depictions of feral cats alluded to suffragist temperament. Suffrage supporters drew attention to their suffering through drawings of battered and bandaged cats; the effect was mockery from the opposition.

References to menacing felines in phrases meant to scar a woman’s character continue to be used in modern expressions.

 

It Happened In New York, Finally

Women in New York gained full voting rights in 1917, two years before the ratification of the 19th Amendment and two years after their valiant attempt to pass a state referendum. By the time New York women were granted the vote, women in five territories and seven states were already exercising voting rights, with another state permitting women to cast a vote in presidential elections.

Lessons learned from the failure of their 1915 attempt provided an outline for success the second time around. Organizations took on various portions of the state to make their cause known.

World War I was terrible enough to be called “the war to end all wars,” but with women doing their part for the effort by spearheading drives, seeking employment in areas left vacant by men fighting abroad and volunteering for medical units, the argument over loss of femininity and leaving family behind grew more difficult for anti-suffragists to debate.

On November 6, 1917 the men of New York cast votes agreeing to permit women the right to vote in all municipal, state and federal elections. Two years later, the ratification of the 19th Amendment guaranteed all American women the right to vote.

Sadly, Jim Crow laws with its legally backed discriminatory protections remained in force until the passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964.

It took another year (1965) until the passage of the Voting Rights Act ended discriminatory actions pertaining to voting against all minorities.

Every four years American citizens exercise the hard-won fight to vote in a federal election. No matter gender, race, religion, age or economic level someone who came before, at one time or another, was prevented from exercising their right to vote for the reasons listed.

Voting is more than a right – it is a gift from those who once were only able to dream of exercising it. Let it not be squandered.