So Near and Yet So Far ² the Female Suffrage Bill of 1870 ¹
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
So Near and Yet So Far ² The Female Suffrage Bill of 1870 ¹ Linda Cameron Stearns in 1867, and another from Mary A. Graves in 1868. The 1867 Please do not refuse to sign the bill and 1868 petitions requested that the bringing “Woman Suffrage” before word “male” be struck from the state the people. Discussion will not harm constitution as a qualification for vot- the truth. We cannot stave it off. ing, but neither resulted in legislative action.2 dwin S. Williams, a young In 1869, however, Representative farmer from Rice County, sent John Lathrop, a Republican from Ethis plea to Governor Horace Olmsted County, introduced the first Austin on March 8, 1870, urging him woman suffrage bill in Minnesota. to sign the first woman suffrage bill As the anti- suffrage St. Cloud Journal approved by both bodies of the Min- reported, “The wrongs and rights nesota state legislature. Ignoring the were duly debated, by both men and plea, Governor Austin vetoed the bill. women— the latter being invited to In doing so, he defied the state consti- speak for themselves. Notwith- Addie L. Ballou, a Civil War nurse, tution. This little- known episode in addressed the Minnesota House in 1869 the fight for woman suffrage in Min- in favor of H.F. 91, a bill for female suffrage. nesota reflects the trials facing the It failed by a single vote. movement in other states and clearly illustrates the conflicting attitudes standing their eloquent appeals, and and political gamesmanship respon- their touching portrayals of ‘man’s sible for delaying its success.1 inhumanity’ to the better half of cre- The campaign for woman suffrage ation, the bill was defeated by a vote in Minnesota had begun in earnest of 21 to 22.” A reconsideration vote on January 11, 1866, when Repre- also failed to pass.3 sentative Anson R. Hayden of Elk Anti- suffragists argued that the River presented the first petition to majority of women had no interest the state legislature on behalf of one in voting or were afraid of being Eva J. Spaulding and others. It failed compelled to do so. They posited that to go beyond a referral to the joint women’s sphere was the home and committee on amendments to the family; political activity, the realm of constitution. State representatives men. Politics, they believed, would considered two more petitions: one degrade women, as summed up in the brought on behalf of Sarah Burger Anson R. Hayden of Elk River, ca. 1862. Minneapolis Daily Tribune: “The souls 98 MINNESOTA HISTORY Abram M. Fridley of Becker, ca. 1878. of most women shrink with abhor- rence from the turmoil, the passion, the strife, to say nothing of the immo- ralities, of politics and government.”4 Supporters countered, “If women are denied the ballot, it must be on some other ground than because they are not inherently the equal of men in honor and rights. All that has been said to create the impression that the ballot is corrupting, and that going to the ballot- box is vulgar and indelicate for women, is absurd. 1870 State Senate of Minnesota. The wife should be legally an equal partner with her husband.”5 Undaunted by these setbacks and encouraged by the success of the Supporters might think the representatives women of Wyoming Territory, who an enlightened group of men, but their were granted full suffrage in Decem- ber 1869, Minnesota suffragists again motives suggested otherwise. pushed for legislation in 1870. On Jan- uary 26, Stearns County Democratic senator Henry Chester Waite intro- duced a pro- suffrage petition bearing a bill proposing that suffrage be customs and laws. The Minnesota 150 signatures. The following day, extended to every person of at least House of Representatives passed Representative Abram McCormick 21 years of age who had lived in the the bill on February 15 by a vote of Fridley, a Democrat from Becker, pre- United States for a full year and in the 33 to 13.7 sented a petition with 600 signatures, state of Minnesota for a minimum of On the face of it, supporters might asking for a constitutional amend- four months. This included natural think the representatives an enlight- ment that removed “male” as a voting citizens, immigrants who declared an ened group of men, but their motives requirement.6 intention to become citizens, Native suggested otherwise. The legisla- Two weeks later, on February 9, Americans, and mixed- race individ- tors were quick to publicly explain Fridley introduced House File 123— uals who agreed to comply with US their reasons for voting as they did. FALL 2020 99 Representatives Albert R. Hall, a for the year Eighteen Hundred and Republican from Hennepin County, Seventy (1870) and each of the legal and John Louis McDonald, a Demo- voters of the State, in their respective crat from Scott County, admitted that Districts may at such Election vote by they voted for the bill on the house ballot for or against such amendment floor because they wanted the people and for the purpose of voting upon to decide the issue, but neither would the question of the amendment pro- support it in a public vote. The action posed by this act, Females [sic] as well of the representatives in passing the as males shall be taken and deemed bill was ridiculed in the newspapers: legal voters.”10 “The House has passed the proposed Senator William Lochren of St. woman’s suffrage amendment to the Anthony publicly decried Austin’s Constitution, with the proviso that veto as “without effect,” saying that women shall be allowed to vote on the governor didn’t have the right the question of its adoption— their to veto the bill and that the decision ballots to be received in separate Governor Horace Austin, official portrait, 1873. would be in the hands of the legal boxes, and counted by themselves. voters the following November. But This is, indeed, carrying the joke a the veto held, and the public vote little too far, and it is sincerely to be to settle it forever— the people. never took place. Had voters accepted hoped that the Senate will preserve For this reason I shall vote to submit the amendment, Minnesota would the State from the ridicule and odium this question to the voters of the have been the first state since 1807 to sure to follow the adoption of such a state in the strongest confidence grant suffrage to women through a measure.”8 that their verdict will be such as will popular electoral vote, regardless of property ownership or marital sta- tus. (New Jersey’s state constitution allowed some women the right to vote The bill landed on Governor Austin’s desk until 1807).11 for his consideration. He opted not to sign it— Meanwhile, the governor defended his action by citing ille- a direct violation of the state constitution. galities inherent in the language of the bill. The bill would allow women to vote on the measure, but under Disregarding such opinions, the put this question forever at rest, and Minnesota Senate passed the bill stamp it, as I believe it to be, one of on February 24 by a vote of 12 to 9. the greatest follies and humbugs of Like their counterparts in the house, the age.”9 the senators justified their actions After its passage by the house and by insisting that the decision be senate, the bill landed on Governor left to the people. While the desire Austin’s desk for his consideration. for a public vote may sound dem- He opted not to sign it— a direct vio- ocratic, lawmakers believed that lation of the state constitution. The the public would overwhelmingly constitution of the state of Minnesota vote against the measure, thereby required that any proposed amend- ending the matter once and for all. ment that passed both bodies of the As Senator Dana E. King, a Repub- legislature be put to a public vote. The lican from Meeker County, stated: bill itself clearly stated this: “This pro- “This question has been and will posed amendment shall be submitted continue to be agitated until it has to the people of the several districts been authoritatively settled by the of this State for their approval or only tribunal which has the power rejection, at the next general election William Lochren of St. Anthony, ca. 1900. 100 MINNESOTA HISTORY Minnesota’s existing constitution, suffrage amendment proposal would bill for an act to grant women the they were not legal voters. Austin pass both house and senate and right to vote, but only in presidential also believed that there was little arrive on a governor’s desk until the elections. It passed the house by a public support for woman suffrage, state ratification of the Nineteenth landslide vote of 103 to 24 on March 5; and that therefore the bill was pre- Amendment.13 the senate passed it on March 21 by a mature. In private correspondence Minnesota’s suffragists continued vote of 49 to 11. After its approval by to a Mrs. W. C. Dodge, Austin wrote: to submit petitions and lobby the the governor on March 24, Minnesota “Our bill was so framed, its illegality state legislature, but it wasn’t until women could vote for presidential was so possible, that it would have the 1875 session that they achieved electors .15 very much jeopardized the success of their first small victory when a Just over five months later, on the measure. The bill was known constitutional amendment passed, September 8, 1919, the Minnesota Leg- to be defective while in the hands of giving women the right to vote in islature voted to ratify the Nineteenth the legislature, and it was kept so no school elections.