Today in Herstory: Suffrage Groups Split Over Philosophies (31 march 1915)
Today in Herstory: Suffrage Groups Split Over Philosophies
March 31, 1915: Today the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage became a national organization, adopted a constitution and launched a suffrage campaign that puts it in direct competition with another effort by the National American Woman Suffrage Association.
Members of the Congressional Union leaving Peg Woffington's Coffee House in New York City, where the early session of their meeting today was held. The "Suffragist," seen in the lower right corner, is the C.U.'s official publication. Front row, from left: Elizabeth Colt, Elizabeth Kent, Elizabeth Selden Rogers, Olive Halladay Hasbrouck, with Hazel MacKaye holding the magazine. Second row: Marie Theodosia Armes, Lucy Burns and Jessie Davisson.
The result of this all-day meeting of the Congressional Union’s Advisory Council makes it clear that there are two very different philosophies among national suffrage groups in regard to attaining their common goal of nationwide woman suffrage. But the enthusiasm to work for that goal is reassuringly high in both groups.
The Congressional Union was formed two years ago by Alice Paul as a local Washington, D.C., organization to help support N.A.W.S.A.’s Congressional Committee, which she led at the time. Congressional Union activists have always taken a more aggressive and flamboyant approach to the battle for the ballot than N.A.W.S.A. officers felt advisable. The C.U. has engaged in activities ranging from colorful parades, pageants, motorcades and other spectacles to public confrontations with Democratic Party candidates over their party’s failure to use its majority status in Congress to pass a nationwide suffrage amendment.
Though both N.A.W.S.A. and the C.U. have the same goal of enfranchising women nationwide, N.A.W.S.A. still favors a State-by-State approach, while the C.U. sees a Federal amendment as the only realistic solution. The primary goal of the new organization is to pass the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, sometimes called the Bristow-Mondell Amendment after its current sponsors in Congress. If approved by 2/3 of the House and Senate and ratified by 3/4 of the States, it would immediately enfranchise women in every State on the same basis as men.
N.A.W.S.A. favors State campaigns and currently endorses the Shafroth-Palmer Amendment, which if it becomes part of the Constitution would mandate a State referendum on woman suffrage if 8% of the registered voters of a State (all of whom would be male, of course) signed petitions requesting it. It would obviously be less controversial and therefore easier to get Congress to pass and the States to ratify, but it would directly enfranchise no one. N.A.W.S.A. sees nationwide suffrage coming about only after women have won the vote in a large number of States and have enough power to directly influence members of Congress.
As might be expected, relations between the two rival suffrage groups have not been cordial since Alice Paul was ousted from leading N.A.W.S.A.’s Congressional Committee after refusing its demand that she resign from the Congressional Union. An attempt at reconciliation early last year failed and the two organizations have been engaging in a kind of “family feud” ever since.
. . . . .
http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2015/03/31/today-in-herstory-suffrage-groups-split-over-philosophies/