The Importance of Examining Ohio Anti-Suffrage
A lot of emphasis is placed on the famous suffragists such as Susan B. Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton, but what about those fighting against the suffragists? Ohio had been a hub for both the suffrage and anti-suffrage movement. The question remains, what propaganda was being distributed by organizations in the state of Ohio by the anti-suffrage movement in the early 1900s?
Ohio Association Opposed to Woman's Suffrage
Established in 1902
The Ohio Association Opposed to Woman's Suffrage was created to spread the word across Ohio that women, in fact, did not want the vote at all. They insisted that is was only a small minority of women who were trying to enforce political power onto the majority of women. The reasons why these women, the anti-suffragists of Ohio, did not want the vote were numerous. To provide clear reasons to the public, especially men (the ones that would be doing the voting), these women published a pamphlet titled "Why the Majority of Women Oppose Woman's Suffrage" and its purpose was to explain their argument with five "fundamental truths."
This document that was published is provided to the left of the page to follow along with as the arguments of this group are examined further. The first claim that the anti-suffragists give is that “the majority of women do not wish to vote.” The interesting thing about this claim is that they support it by real statistical data from the women in the state of Ohio regarding their feelings about having the vote. Their statistics make a strong argument that the voting men would do Ohio a disservice if they were to vote against the majority. When looking at the anti-suffrage movement across the nation, a lot of the arguments made against the vote were emotionally-driven testimonies of high class women who did not use statistical evidence to back their claims, making this argument unique among the rest.
The second claim made is that women gaining the right to vote is not going to significantly impact the political sphere, therefore it is unnecessary for the ballot to be placed upon them. This association did research and concluded that in states that have already granted women the right to vote were not at all much different than those who did not. This use of logic would have a strong effect on the male audience that the piece was intended for, showing them that it would not make a difference either way. These women concluded that the best place for women to make an impact is in the “true womanhood” standards to be at home, contributing to society in this way.
The third claim made is, “the payment of taxes and the right to vote have no connection whatever.” This claim is a direct response to many of the suffragists who were saying that women should not have to pay taxes if they are not allowed to vote because that would be taxation with no representation. The anti-suffragists fired back at this by saying that a person voting and their taxes have no relation to each other. They provide an example that men who own property in multiple states are not asked to vote in every state that they own property in. A fault that could be found in this argument is that voting and taxation are connected. Those that vote are able to have a voice in the politics of taxing, therefore having an effect on it, making this anti-suffrage argument faulty.
The fourth claim is that, “women lack the physical ability to exercise the franchise on the same terms as men.” They say that in their current moment, women are excluded from such things as jury duty, policing, and the military. The anti-suffragists were in fear that if they were granted the right to vote, an activity that was male-dominated, they would have to endure the other male-dominated activities as listed above. These activities, to them, were above their physical capacity as women, leading them to make the assumption that all male-dominated activities would be inappropriate for women to partake in.
The fifth claim is that, “it is a mistake to presume that all women will vote right on moral issues.” While they do not claim that all women cannot decipher their feelings of right and wrong, it is clear that they are not confident in their moral compasses to guide them to voting the “right” way. This association says of women that they, “would be a most dangerous element in political life and would lend themselves to the support of immoral issues.” This is a hefty claim made with no solid backing, making this the most emotionally driven argument of the article because they do not provide any example that would support this claim and is entirely an opinion statement, but would ultimately be effective. To end their article, they said that, “women owe a debt of gratitude,” to men and that, “the demand for so-called “Woman’s Rights” is both unbecoming and ungenerous." Men, in Ohio, reading this piece would most definitely have been more in favor of voting against suffrage because of the compelling claims and the use of fact-based and emotional appeals.
Work Cited
New York Heritage. Most People Opposed Women's Suffrage. n.d. Website. 14 April 2020.
<http://www.newyorkheritage.org/exhibits/recognizing-womens-right-vote/most-people-opposed-
women%E2%80%99s-suffrage>.
This document that was published is provided to the left of the page to follow along with as the arguments of this group are examined further. The first claim that the anti-suffragists give is that “the majority of women do not wish to vote.” The interesting thing about this claim is that they support it by real statistical data from the women in the state of Ohio regarding their feelings about having the vote. Their statistics make a strong argument that the voting men would do Ohio a disservice if they were to vote against the majority. When looking at the anti-suffrage movement across the nation, a lot of the arguments made against the vote were emotionally-driven testimonies of high class women who did not use statistical evidence to back their claims, making this argument unique among the rest.
The second claim made is that women gaining the right to vote is not going to significantly impact the political sphere, therefore it is unnecessary for the ballot to be placed upon them. This association did research and concluded that in states that have already granted women the right to vote were not at all much different than those who did not. This use of logic would have a strong effect on the male audience that the piece was intended for, showing them that it would not make a difference either way. These women concluded that the best place for women to make an impact is in the “true womanhood” standards to be at home, contributing to society in this way.
The third claim made is, “the payment of taxes and the right to vote have no connection whatever.” This claim is a direct response to many of the suffragists who were saying that women should not have to pay taxes if they are not allowed to vote because that would be taxation with no representation. The anti-suffragists fired back at this by saying that a person voting and their taxes have no relation to each other. They provide an example that men who own property in multiple states are not asked to vote in every state that they own property in. A fault that could be found in this argument is that voting and taxation are connected. Those that vote are able to have a voice in the politics of taxing, therefore having an effect on it, making this anti-suffrage argument faulty.
The fourth claim is that, “women lack the physical ability to exercise the franchise on the same terms as men.” They say that in their current moment, women are excluded from such things as jury duty, policing, and the military. The anti-suffragists were in fear that if they were granted the right to vote, an activity that was male-dominated, they would have to endure the other male-dominated activities as listed above. These activities, to them, were above their physical capacity as women, leading them to make the assumption that all male-dominated activities would be inappropriate for women to partake in.
The fifth claim is that, “it is a mistake to presume that all women will vote right on moral issues.” While they do not claim that all women cannot decipher their feelings of right and wrong, it is clear that they are not confident in their moral compasses to guide them to voting the “right” way. This association says of women that they, “would be a most dangerous element in political life and would lend themselves to the support of immoral issues.” This is a hefty claim made with no solid backing, making this the most emotionally driven argument of the article because they do not provide any example that would support this claim and is entirely an opinion statement, but would ultimately be effective. To end their article, they said that, “women owe a debt of gratitude,” to men and that, “the demand for so-called “Woman’s Rights” is both unbecoming and ungenerous." Men, in Ohio, reading this piece would most definitely have been more in favor of voting against suffrage because of the compelling claims and the use of fact-based and emotional appeals.
Work Cited
New York Heritage. Most People Opposed Women's Suffrage. n.d. Website. 14 April 2020.
<http://www.newyorkheritage.org/exhibits/recognizing-womens-right-vote/most-people-opposed-
women%E2%80%99s-suffrage>.
Ohio's Silent Womanhood
Published May 7, 1902
Figure 1: Susan Platt Hubbard
|
The Ohio Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage was housed in the capital of the state, Columbus. This organization also had many branches around the state that shared their same goal of anti-suffrage, which will be examined further later on in this project. The president of the Ohio Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage was A. P. Hubbard. Before an examination is done of her rhetoric, it is important to dive into who Hubbard was and how that influenced her opinions.
Susan Platt Hubbard (See Fig. 1) was born in 1865 to a prestigious family in Columbus, OH and was the niece of President Rutherford B. Hayes. Hubbard was raised in a very traditional upper class fashion, receiving a private education and graduated from Miss Porter’s School in Connecticut. Then, in 1886 she would marry Hermon Milton Hubbard (See Fig. 2), a businessman. Hubbard would spend majority of her time participating in different social organizations in Columbus, finding that she could be quite influential in the political sphere, she would eventually, in 1903, be elected as president of the Ohio Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (Florence Griswold Museum). Hubbard was constantly battling the opinions of suffragist claiming, “it is by educating public opinion rather than by voting that social and political reforms that have been brought about, individualism is the cry of the age, the individualism of woman in these modern days is a threat to the family” (Florence Griswold Museum). Hubbard strongly opposed any argument that claimed men and women could be looked at as equals. Hubbard was known to denounce any women who claimed that women were being unfairly taxed because they did not have the right to vote, as is mentioned in the claims in the previous article. |
Figure 3: Hubbard's Article "Ohio's Silent Womanhood"
|
At the beginning of her term of presidency of the Ohio Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, Hubbard wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York Times titled "Ohio's Silent Womanhood" on the 7th of May, 1902 (See Fig. 3). Hubbard wrote this article to introduce her association to the public and encourage people to join her cause. The title of this article is representative of how the majority of anti-suffragists felt, that their voices were overshadowed by the extremeness of the suffragists.
Hubbard wanted to called the attention of New York to their cause in Ohio because she felt that Ohio was a "pivotal state" to ensure that suffrage is shut down. Hubbard uses statistical evidence that 90% of Ohio women do not want the vote, that it is the few radical suffragists that are inflating the perceptions of Ohio women. As Hubbard states in this article their group, "represents the quiet, home-loving, law-abiding women" and that idea is very representative of the pillars of the Cult of True Womanhood (Hubbard). Works Cited Hubbard, A.P. "Ohio's Silent Womanhood." 7 May 1902. New York Times. Document. 16 February 2020. < https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1912/05/09/ 100534217.pdf>. Florence Griswold Museum. Susan Platt Hubbard and Anti-Suffragism in Old Lyme. 4 September 2019. 15 April 2020. <https://florencegriswoldmuseum.org/profile-susan platt-hubbard-and-anti-suffragism-in-old-lyme/>. |
Cincinnati Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage
Branch of the Larger Ohio Anti-Suffrage Movement
Get In Touch
Hello! I am glad you found my page! This website was created as a project for my Women's Rhetoric course at Lake Erie College, a class whose purpose is to bring to light all the factors of the suffrage movement in the state of Ohio and more specifically Painesville, OH, the home of our college.
|