Anti-Suffrage: More Than a Socialite’s Movement

The women’s suffrage movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries marked a turning point for women’s rights across the nation resulting in the passing of the 19^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The narrative of women gathering in parlor rooms, protesting on street corners, and coming together in comradery for the sake of enfranchisement is lauded throughout history books and American culture, however, the Suffrage Movement did not have a fully committed gender in support of the cause as would be assumed. The Anti-Suffrage Movement was supported by both men and women and resulted in staunch opposition to those in favor of female suffrage. History paints this opposition in a feeble, self-obsessed, male dominated and influenced light, wrapping their mission and motivation into a narrative of repressed women too afraid or weak-willed to stand up for their rights. Under the banner of feminism, historians have lauded the feats of powerful women such as Margaret Sanger, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton while at the same time dismissing the arguments of Josephine Dodge and Helen Kendrick Johnson as simply the other side. To the extreme contrary, however, the women who made up the Anti-Suffrage Movement were highly educated, public serving, intelligent individuals who identified as agents of their own fate and to describe them as anything else is a grave disservice and injustice to their autonomy.

With so much focus directed on the victor of the nineteenth Amendment, it is difficult to truly appreciate what they were victorious over when, so little is logically discussed about the opposition. The Suffrage Movement was not an easily blazed trail, but rather a fight against sisters, mothers, husbands, fathers, and friends. There were political, financial, and domestic interests at risk due to this major shift in societal life lurking on the horizon. Ironically, historians who often stood upon feminist soap boxes, have proceeded to downplay the importance of the Anti-Suffragette linking her power to that of the invisible man standing behind her, pulling the strings like so many marionette puppets.[1] While male interest and support in the Anti-Suffrage Movement appears to be loudly prevalent, with common themes of argument directed at protecting interests in alcohol and domestic life it is the depiction of the women who fought against female enfranchisement that has been brutalized through dialogues of historic condescension. Descriptions of their motivations stripped down to foolish female weakness were only supported by leading members of the Suffrage Movement who described these women as disloyal, comfortably placed socialites more concerned that “… the privileges they enjoyed might be lost in the rights to be gained….”[2] The assumption that their base argument of “a woman’s place is in the home”[3] has carried forward from the early twentieth century into modern conversations, sweeping aside the true intelligence, forethought, concerns, and progressive ideologies which drove the women within the Anti-Suffrage Movement[4] resulting in a narrative that has stripped these protestors of their strengths and abilities, dismissing their identities and beliefs.

Rather, their mission was laid out in black and white through Anti-Suffrage newspapers, essays, pamphlets, and even speeches before Congress, all supported by established female associations and organizations, in which men played their part as distributors of these materials, but their movements were dictated by their female counterparts.[5] Their arguments against women’s enfranchisement were logical and rational and garnered much praise in the mainstream media for their “… complete and overwhelming refutation of the arguments of the suffragists”[6] according to a St. Louis periodical. Helen Kendrick Johnson’s 1897 book, Woman and the Republic sparked her own personal accolades from the Denver Times who exclaimed that she “possesses a wonderfully unfeminine capability for indulging in calm, logical discussion.”[7] The press further claimed that “if the woman suffrage movement is ever to be finally defeated, it will be by women themselves…”[8] These types of praise shine a light on the reality behind the characters of the women who urged men to vote against women’s enfranchisement plucking them out of the image of bored, emotional socialites and showing their potential as a formidable opponent.

Though many of the “Antis” did indeed come from wealthy families with notable names, they were not the only “butterflies of fashion,”[9] far removed from the reality of society beyond their “unimpeachable circle”[10] as the Suffragists had claimed. Instead, their approach to the Suffrage Movement and who could participate amongst their ranks was equally exclusive as the Suffragists who also denied the voices of women of color, immigrant status, and the working class.[11] The image of “lazy, comfortable, sheltered creatures, caring nothing for the miseries of the poor” that suffragette Florence Kelley so painfully painted was one that misrepresented a group of women who had long records of public service and education. They participated on school, historic, and health boards as well as were active members of community and national associations such as the Research Committee of the Education and Industrial Union, the Welfare Department of the National Civic Federation of the Woman’s Trade Union League, the American Society for Labor Legislation, and held connections with the State Commission on Economy and Efficiency.[12] They were educated in public and private schools such as Notre Dame, members of the Bar, cared for invalid family members as results of the Civil War, and were employed in medical arenas such as the Orthopedic Clinic for Children.[13] To cast off even a small sampling of the strong, socially active force behind the Anti-Suffrage Movement as selfish and uncaring is an execution of character to those who fought for what they felt was right. Though a small sampling of women, they were not. The Massachusetts Women’s Anti-Suffrage Association boasted 36,761 members alone.[14] Perhaps the most famous nationwide association was the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS) which was started in 1911 by a woman who spent much of her wealth and privilege petitioning for the creation of day care facilities for working mothers, Josephine Dodge.[15] This organization held branches throughout the United States, though held most of its popularity in the northeastern states.[16]

Each woman, on either side of the discussion, held within her motivations and a mission which spurned her decision to pick her battle. Their reasons for opposition varied with each individual and were laid out plainly in the NAOWS’s declaration of Some Reasons Why We Oppose Votes for Women published in 1894. Some felt that women could not be responsible voters as they were disallowed the opportunity to be agents of the government through the military or law enforcement.[17] Others had a fundamental disagreement against the idea that those in support of Women’s Suffrage merely wanted to double the voting capacity of the major cities acting as an additional vote to their husband, or even nullifying his vote should she disagree.[18] Elaborating on that same line of objection, many felt that the system was already broken with male participation and that adding women to the mess would only hurt the cause rather than contribute to its repair.[19] Then there was the ethical dilemma that women already had enough to do in their daily lives that adding one more responsibility of educated voting would render the right an obligation, “our appreciation of their importance requires us to protest against all efforts to infringe upon our rights by imposing upon us those obligations which cannot be separated from suffrage…”[20] The NAOWS concluded their manifesto by stating that their male counterparts “…represent us at the ballot box. Our fathers and our brothers love us; our husbands are our choice; and one with us; our sons are what WE MAKE THEM.”[21] Further defending their willingness to abdicate their right to vote by stating, “We are content that they represent US in the corn-field, on the battle-field, and at the ballot-box, and we THEM in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle.”[22] Moral arguments also breeched the surface including a severe concern against the Suffrage Movement’s support of Margaret Sanger and her ideals about birth control and planned parenting, placing the right of reproduction in the hands of the woman rather than the right of the family.[23]

Their arguments were deliberate and willful, each standing in defense of their beliefs and perceived contentment with their roles and responsibilities as a wife and mother. Their sphere of influence was felt on a local level through their civil works, employment, and participation in committees and unions rather than at the ballot-box. However, when the tide turned and the 19^th Amendment was passed, many approached the new shift in responsibility with a sense of progressive acceptance. Elizabeth Lowell Putnam, a staunch Anti-Suffragist and leader of the Education and Organizing Committee of the Women’s Anti-Suffrage Association of Massachusetts “was elected president of the electoral college of Massachusetts, becoming the first woman to preside over a state electoral college”[24] in 1920. The discussion of Women’s Suffrage must continue to be a complete one which includes both sides of the argument under the purview of logical examination. Without honest consideration of the formidable force that the Anti-Suffrage Movement was and the resilient women who stood behind it the conversation of women’s equality will continue to be lost in the ashes of time.

Bibliography

Lange, Allison, PhD. "National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage." History of U.S. Woman's Suffrage. 2015. Accessed April 27, 2019. http://www.crusadeforthevote.org/naows-opposition.

"Margaret Sanger and the Women's Suffrage Movement." CSUN Oviatt Library. September 18, 2018. Accessed April 24, 2019. https://library.csun.edu/SCA/Peek-in-the-Stacks/sanger.

Massachusetts Women. Anti-Suffrage Essays. Boston, MA: Forum Publications of Boston, 1916.

National Association Opposed To Woman Suffrage. Some reasons why we oppose votes for women ... National association opposed to woman suffrage. New York City. New York, 1894. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/rbpe.1300130c/.

Thurner, Manuela. "Better Citizens Without the Ballot": American AntiSuffrage Women and Their Rationale During the Progressive Era." Journal of Women's History 5, no. 1 (1993): 33-60. https://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed April 28, 2019).

"Women's Suffrage: Anti-Suffrage." Research Guides Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America. Accessed April 27, 2019. https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=512561&p=3562671.

---

[1] Manuela Thurner. ""Better Citizens Without the Ballot": American AntiSuffrage Women and Their Rationale During the Progressive Era." Journal of Women's History 5, no. 1 (1993): 33-60. https://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed April 28, 2019).

[2] Ibid, 34

[3] Ibid, 35

[4] Ibid, 35

[5] Ibid, 36

[6] Ibid, 36

[7] Ibid, 36

[8] Ibid, 36

[9] Ibid 37

[10] Ibid 37

[11] Ibid, 37

[12] Massachusetts Women. Anti-Suffrage Essays. Boston, MA: Forum Publications of Boston, 1916.

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

[15] Allison Lange, PhD. "National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage." History of U.S. Woman's Suffrage. 2015. Accessed April 28, 2019. http://www.crusadeforthevote.org/naows-opposition.

[16] Ibid 1

[17] National Association Opposed To Woman Suffrage. Some reasons why we oppose votes for women ... National association opposed to woman suffrage. New York City. New York, 1894. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/rbpe.1300130c/.

[18] Ibid 1

[19] Ibid 1

[20] Ibid 1

[21] Ibid 1

[22] Ibid 1

[23] "Margaret Sanger and the Women's Suffrage Movement." CSUN Oviatt Library. September 18, 2018. Accessed April 28, 2019. https://library.csun.edu/SCA/Peek-in-the-Stacks/sanger.

[24] "Women's Suffrage: Anti-Suffrage." Research Guides Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America. Accessed April 28, 2019. https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=512561&p=3562671.

Thomas Jefferson: The Father of American Archaeology

At a time when archaeology was entirely wrapped up in haphazard artifact collecting under the banner of antiquarianism, Thomas Jefferson blazed a trail that would contribute to the transformation of treasure hunting antiquarianism into the science of archaeology. Through his curiosity and subsequent research, Jefferson posited a hypothesis, applied methodical digging techniques, provided qualitative and quantitative data, and published his conclusions in spite of current historical climates. A century ahead of its time, Jefferson’s research provided a foundational block for future archaeological research methods as well as marked the beginning of understanding ancient Native American culture and histories at the risk of his own reputation.

As with any discipline, archaeology, too, was subject to the evolution of research and acquisition methods of its infancy. Prior to becoming its own field of study under the wide reaching umbrella of anthropology in the late 19^th century with globally recognized and respected methods of recovery and field work it had fallen under the scope of antiquarianism. The 18^th century brought with it a shift in individual focus from the heavens to humanism,[1] sparking interest in not only the academics of the era to investigate humanity’s ancient past, but the leisurely gentlemen of the time as well. Antiquarianism became a hobbyist’s profession in which he studied history and searched for the relics of the past to further his understanding of where his ancestors came from. Many of these individuals “were wealthy adventurers, explorers, and merchants.”[2] The methods at the time compare dimly to that of today, where, in most cases, a complete disregard for the cultures and countries in which artifacts were located and rightfully belonged were extracted to distant lands and installed in museums[3] or sold to private, wealthy collectors. This commonly occurred during war under the guise of protecting beautiful monuments by removing them from potentially targeted cities such as was evident in the Napoleonic Wars and the collection of “hundreds of tons of Egyptian artifacts.”[4] During this era, antiquarians collected artifacts without documenting where they came from, the environment they were rediscovered in, or any other observable facts before removing them. This was detrimental to the cultural and historic aspect of the artifact as it denied any context for it, leaving it disenfranchised from its origin. Private sales of collected artifacts has remained a practice into the current century,[5] although by now it truly is considered looting and tomb raiding. Today, the retrospective view of antiquarianism is gradually shifting from one less of condemnation of grave robbing opportunists to one of deeper understanding of the processes behind the birth of new scientific disciplines. The original narrative that antiquarians “were in essence amateurs and dilettantes”[6] now being seen as “one designed to stress the scientific credentials of the disciplines that grew out and away from antiquarianism,”[7] some of which include history, anthropology, and archaeology.[8]

During this age of arbitrary excavation, one particular amateur archaeologist stands out among the rest. Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and third president of the United States, had an entirely different approach to antiquarianism; one of method and strategy, established documentation, and conclusive hypothesis. His notes and suppositions were recorded in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia, published in 1787. This book was in answer to a survey posited by Francois Marbois, the secretary of the French legation in Philadelphia in 1780.[9] Part of the survey requested information about the histories and populations of Native American tribes of the state of Virginia and Jefferson did not hesitate in his response. Instead, he dedicated an entire 20 page chapter to the relationships, histories, census, and composition of Virginian Native American peoples in addition to his description of what he concluded was a Native American burial mound located in the neighborhood of his home in Monticello.[10] His main goal of the excavation was to rediscover the cultural aspects of the burial mound, specifically on how it was built and for what purpose. Jefferson continued to outline the different mounds in the locality of his home and the speculation surrounding their development. “These are of different sizes, some of them constructed of earth, and some of loose stones.”[11] The mainstream supposition assumed that these mounds marked the locations of ancient town sites since they were most typically located in Jefferson’s modern time “in the softest and most fertile meadow-grounds on river sides.”[12] The theory of the development of the mounds in these ancients towns included the tradition of “the first person who died was placed erect, and earth put about him, so as to cover and support him…”[13] then, when another individual died, they stacked that corpse on top of the previous and built up the dirt around it, continuing onward until the mounds became the large structures that they were.[14] Unsatisfied with these assumptions and uneducated hypotheses, Jefferson set out to discover the true answer himself through calculated, thorough excavation.[15]

Jefferson’s findings had a profound impact on the future disciplines of anthropology and archaeology because he documented what he observed. At a time when searching for material value or treasure was at the forefront of most antiquarian’s minds, Jefferson was more interested in the discovery of the truth about what he was investigating. The knowledge borne from the excavation of the mounds was where the wealth was hidden for him and he donated that wealth to the rest of the world through the publication of his book. The last pages of the chapter described what the mounds looked like from the outside prior to excavation stating, “It was of a spheriodical [sic] form, of about 40 feet diameter at the base, and had been of about twelve feet altitude…”[16] He explains his methods of entry to the mound, “I first dug superficially in several parts of it, and came to collections of human bones, at different depths, from six inches to three feet below the surface.”[17] He discovered in these bones that they were not solely standing erect as once thought, but rather mixed in their configuration to include vertical, horizontal and “entangled.”[18] From this disarray of bones he posited that they were arbitrarily placed into the area as if they were “emptied promiscuously from a bag or blanket”[19] and then promptly covered by dirt. Jefferson describes the condition of the bones and their brittleness, the types of bones present as well as their sizes and color. “This bone was white, all the others of a sand color. The bones of infants being soft, they probably decay sooner, which might be the cause so few were found here.”[20] He excavated the mound further and documented the stratigraphy of the mound as well as the layers in which each artifact or ecofact was located, a shockingly modern scientific consideration developed by James Hutton, the Father of Modern Geology, in the same era the excavation was taking place.[21] Jefferson was able to conclude from this study of the strata that the mounds were developed by placing the first collection of bones of the multiple deceased on the main level of earth, then covering them first with stones followed by dirt, then repeating this process by depositing a second collection of bones and covering them with stones and earth, continuing on until the mound grew to the size it currently was.[22]

The discovery of children’s bones was a startlingly new development to the contrary of other uneducated guesses of the purpose of the mounds acting as a burial ground strictly for warriors.[23] His excavation quickly dispelled many of the common threads of belief within his colonial community, yet, he took it one step further to examine the myths of European and, even, Asian peoples landing in North America prior to its official occupation by European settlers in the late fifteenth century and beyond. Jefferson addresses these conjectures in his report to the French secretary, by recounting the history of possible accidental arrivals from European Nations. While the current society of the time believed that the burial mounds were the remnants of “Israelites, Phoenicians, or Vikings”[24] Jefferson stood strong in his conclusion that the mounds belonged to the native peoples of the area. “I know of no such thing existing as an Indian monument… that they were repositories of the dead, has been obvious to all: but on what particular occasion constructed, was a matter of doubt.”[25] Jefferson supports his theory that the local or original tribes to the area were the creators of the mounds by recounting a time in which he observed a traveling band of Native Americans approach the particular mound under excavation thirty years prior. The tribe “went through the woods directly to it, without any instructions or enquiry, and having staid [sic] about it some time [sic], with expressions which were construed to be those of sorrow, they returned to the high road…”[26] He attributes the existence of the children’s bones for their mourning and makes note of other mounds in the area which had experienced similar interactions with native peoples. Through the analysis of the existing languages in Asia compared to current Native American tribes Jefferson further predicts that Native American populations were the descendants of ancient Asian peoples. This conclusion allowed Jefferson to extrapolate that since there are no recognizable similarities between the two modern languages between Asia and North America that the ancestors of current Native Americans could potentially have been similar to that of “the age of the earth.”[27] This cutting-edge idea of linguistic comparison was concluded with his final statement on the topic, “A greater number of those radical changes of language have taken place among the red men of America, proves them of greater antiquity than those of Asia.”[28] The modern theories of how the Americas were originally populated offer some support for Jefferson’s remarkably well predicted hypotheses.

Jefferson’s approach to the burial mound was inspired by a respectful curiosity coupled with the determination to acquire the truth about its origin and creators. Through systematic excavation and unprecedented documentation, Jefferson laid the groundwork for American archaeology earning him one more field in which he was labeled a Founding Father. The idea that Native Americans were not only capable of monumental architecture, but also ancient occupants of North America was incendiary at the time when racism and the systematic assimilation and acculturation of native peoples was the dominant social perspective and mission. Jefferson’s conclusions would not truly find a serious audience until nearly 100 years later when ethnologist Cyrus Thomas came to the same understanding of the mounds and published thorough, more modernly scientific data on the subject.[29]

Bibliography

1. "Archaeology." National Geographic Society. October 09, 2012. Accessed April 17, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/archaeology/.
2. Clark, Robert. "How Tomb Raiders Are Stealing Our History." National Geographic. May 13, 2016. Accessed April 18, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/06/looting-ancient-blood-antiquities/.
3. Colavito, Jason. "Jefferson's Excavation." Jason Colavito. Accessed March 29, 2019. http://www.jasoncolavito.com/jeffersons-excavation.html.
4. "James Hutton: The Founder of Modern Geology | AMNH." American Museum of Natural History. Accessed April 19, 2019. https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/earth-inside-and-out/james-hutton.
5. Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia. Boston, MA: David Carlisle, 1801.
6. Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Ancient History and the Antiquarian." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13, no. 3/4 (1950): 285-315. doi:10.2307/750215.
7. "Jefferson's Excavation of an Indian Burial Mound." Monticello. Accessed April 18, 2019. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-excavation-indian-burial-mound.
8. Murray, Tim. "Rethinking Antiquarianism." Accessed April 17, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334.bha.17203.

---

[1] Arnaldo Momigliano. "Ancient History and the Antiquarian." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13, no. 3/4 (1950): 285-315. doi:10.2307/750215. 285.

[2] "Archaeology." National Geographic Society. October 09, 2012. Accessed April 17, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/archaeology/.

[3] Ibid, 1

[4] Ibid, 1

[5] Robert Clark. "How Tomb Raiders Are Stealing Our History." National Geographic. May 13, 2016. Accessed April 18, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/06/looting-ancient-blood-antiquities/.

[6] Tim Murray. "Rethinking Antiquarianism." Accessed April 17, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334.bha.17203.

[7] Ibid, 1

[8] Ibid, 1

[9] "Jefferson's Excavation of an Indian Burial Mound." Monticello. Accessed April 18, 2019. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-excavation-indian-burial-mound.

[10] Thomas Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia. Boston, MA: David Carlisle, 1801.

[11] Ibid, 140

[12] Ibid, 141

[13] Ibid, 141

[14] Ibid, 141

[15] Ibid, 141

[16] Ibid, 141

[17] Ibid, 142

[18] Ibid, 142

[19] Ibid, 142

[20] Ibid, 143

[21] "James Hutton: The Founder of Modern Geology | AMNH." American Museum of Natural History. Accessed April 19, 2019. https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/earth-inside-and-out/james-hutton.

[22] Thomas Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia. Boston, MA: David Carlisle, 1801. 144.

[23] Ibid, 140

[24] Jason Colavito. "Jefferson's Excavation." Jason Colavito. Accessed March 29, 2019. http://www.jasoncolavito.com/jeffersons-excavation.html.

[25] Thomas Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia. Boston, MA: David Carlisle, 1801. 140.

[26] Ibid, 145

[27] Ibid, 147

[28] Ibid, 148

[29] Jason Colavito. "Jefferson's Excavation." Jason Colavito. Accessed March 29, 2019. http://www.jasoncolavito.com/jeffersons-excavation.html.