Ninety years ago today the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, giving women the right to vote.  Back then, our grandmothers dreamed this would finally give equality to their daughters, but instead, the gains have been largely illusionary.  Newsweek runs down how very far we still have to go.

I’m ashamed to say that the Democratic Party tried to filibuster the amendment in the Senate.  The roll call:

FOR ADOPTION – 36.

Republicans – 36: Capper, Cummins, Curtis, Edge, Elkins, Fall, Fernald, France, Frelinghuysen, Gronna, Hale, Harding, Johnson, (Cal.,) Jones, (Wash.,) Kellogg, Kenyon, Kayes, La Follette, Lenroot, McCormick, McCumber, McNaty, Nelson, New, Newberry, Norris, Page, Phipps, Poindexter, Sherman, Smoot, Spencer, Sterling, Sutherland, Warren, Watson.

Democrats – 20.

Ashurst, Chamberlain, Culberson, Harris, Henderson, Jones, (N. M.,) Kenrick, Kirby, McKellar, Myers, Nugent, Phelan, Pittman, Ransdell, Shepard, Smith, (Ariz.,) Stanley, Thomas, Walsh, (Mass.,) Walsh, (Mon.)

AGAINST ADOPTION – 25.

Republicans – 8:  Borah, Brandegee, Dillingham, Knox, Lodge, McLean, Moses, Wadsworth.

Democrats – 17: Bankhead, Beckham, Dial, Fletcher, Gay, Harrison, Hitchcock, Overman, Reed, Simmons, Smith, (Md.,) Smith, (S. C.,) Swanson, Trammell, Underwood, Williams, Wolcott.

Paired. ***(See explanation from CG in comments)

Ball and King, for, with Shields, against: Calder and Townsend, for, with Penrose, against; Gerry and Johnson of South Dakota, for, with Martin, against; Gore and Colt, for, with Pomerone, against. ***Does anyone know who this Gore is? (See answer from CG in comments.)

Absent and Not Paired.

Owen, Robinson, and Smith of Georgia.

Just as in the struggle for racial equality, opponents cloaked themselves in “states rights” language.  Speaking for the minority, Republican Senator Wadsworth of New York had this to say:

“No vote of mine cast upon this amendment would deprive any of the electors of my State of any privilege they now enjoy,” said the Senator. “I feel so strongly that the people of the several States should be permitted to decide for themselves, that am frank to say that, if this amendment, instead of being drafted to extend woman suffrage all over the country, were drafted to forbid the extension of the franchise to women in the States, I would vote against it. Even though one might be opposed on general principles to the extension of the franchise to women, one cannot logically object to the people of a State settling that question for themselves.

“It seems to me that it is incumbent upon a Senator in considering his attitude on this matter to regard the nation as a whole and to give consideration to the wishes of the people of the various States which have expressed themselves from time to time.”

And that rallying cry came from a credible source: at the time the amendment passed, in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Louisiana, Texas, Wisconsin, and other States woman’s suffrage had already been defeated at the polls.

“Now the question is,” he resumed, “whether the people of these States are competent to settle the question for themselves. There is no tremendous emergency facing the country, no revolution or rebellion threatened, which would seem to make it necessary to impose on the people of these States a thing they have said as free citizens they do not require or desire. Is it contrary to the spirit of American institutions that they shall be left free to decide these things for themselves?

“My contention has been, with respect to an amendment to the Constitution, that, if it be placed there, it should command the reverence and devotion of all the people of the country. The discussion here yesterday makes it perfectly apparent that, in part at least, in a certain section of this country, this proposed amendment will be a dead letter. No pretense is made that it will be lived up to in spirit as well as in letter. That same attitude has been manifest in the discussion of the last amendment to the Constitution, ratified last Winter. Today there are thousands of people all over the United States who are attempting to contrive ways by which the prohibition amendment can be evaded. This attitude shows an utter lack of appreciation of the Constitution as a sacred instrument, a lack of realization of the spirit of self-government.”

Read more at Modern  History Sourcebook.

Ratification didn’t bring an end to the voting struggle, nor did it lead to the passage a year later of the Equal Rights Amendment. 90 years later, it still languishes in the following state legislatures:

The Hall of Shame:

• Arizona
• New Mexico
• Virginia
• Arkansas
• Mississippi
• Alabama
• Georgia
• Florida
• Illinois
• North Carolina
• Louisiana
• Missouri
• Nevada
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina

The following states first approved, then rescinded ratification:

• Idaho
• Kentucky
• Nebraska
• Tennessee
• South Dakota

From Wikipedia

So very far still to go.

5 Comments