At first I wasn't sure this was the title, since it's written in that old, slanting cursive that all old documents seem to be written in. As I read further, however, it became clear that the author believes that the vote "is note desired by most women." In fact, "the average woman deems her duties respectable and feels no need of the honor the ballot would confer." One danger of women being granted the honor of the ballot would be that "a female majority in the country" could possibly "be arrayed against the male minority and that the male minority should override the decision of the female majority by force of arms."
Wow.
I read on. Apparently prohibition was a big issue at the time, and it was argued that if women could vote, they would vote for prohibition and therefore the country would be more moral. This point is moot, however, because "we have laws enough already" regarding prohibition. After all, all states in the Union but four are "employed by law to close the saloons on the sabbath and at other times when necessary".
Besides, "as long as men are cursed with the thirst for strong drink, so long will the saloons last. Only the growing Christian influence in the home can overcome this, and so let the mother give her time and influence to the home instead of politics".
To further drive home the point that the female vote will not engender temperance, the author notes that in "Cheyenne, the capital of Wyoming, where women have voted for a quarter of a century, there are forty five licensed gambling houses, saloons as numerous as any kind of stores, and not an act of legislature has been passed in Wyoming aimed at the betterment of the human race, through these women's influence."
I am left to wonder if the author ever visited Cheyenne, the capital of Wyoming.
The author seems to be of the opinion that if women are allowed to vote, they would be so consumed with their new power that they would neglect their home life. Time normally spent rearing a good, moral family would now "be taken up in canvassing and in conventions, while the children...are left in the care of ignorant servants."
In conclusion, the mother should use "all her efforts to make the home pure and smart that her sons will go forth into the world with characters strong against its evils, and by their influence, in due time, will come the reforms desired."
Right.
I am fairly taken aback by this essay, amazed that I, a self-described tree-hugging liberal, am related to the author of this piece; amazed that my mother, who was infuriated when my sister's Catholic school sent home anti-abortion propaganda, has roots in a family that would believe that women should be denied the vote.
While reading the essay, I assumed that it was written by one "James Hurd", since most of the other documents I've found in the desk drawer mention him in some regard. On the back of the essay is written "Brief - Women's Suffrage. English - Sec. D. May B. Baker."
I foolishly assume that May B. Baker is the teacher who has assigned this paper. Then I come across the following wedding announcement:
Mr. and Mrs. Jerome E. Baker
announce the marraige of their daughter
May Belle
to
Mr. Harry Luther Hurd
on Tuesday, September the fourteenth
nineteen hundred and nine
Mexico, New York
Mr. Harry Luther Hurd is my great-grandfather, which means that May B. Baker, author of the above mentioned Brief-Women's Suffrage, is my great-grandmother.
Sometime before 1909, when she became May B. Hurd, my great grandmother was fervently opposed to women being granted the right to vote.
I am a bit taken a back, to say the least. It shocks me that one of my female ancestors could be so opposed to what I consider a basic right. Women are contributing members of society, and as such we should have a say in how our society functions. I, for one, am a woman unwilling to use "the power of her persuasion, her affections, her ingenuity to influence" my husband and to be "represented by her husband at the polls". Although, as an unmarried woman, I would "usually be represented by some male relative, but such women are comparatively few."
The 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote, was passed by congress in 1919 and ratified a year later. So women have really only had the right to vote for the past 87 years, which, in the grand scheme of things, is not so long a time. Proponents of women's suffrage argued that the vote would help to ensure a fair wage for women. Unfortunately, despite having had the vote since 1920, we still have a long way to go; in the United States, women only earn 77 cents for every $1 a man earns. That's only up by 3 cents in the last 10 years.
This is a long post, and badly in need of some editing. Thank you very much to those of you who have actually gotten through the whole thing (Nate and Tom). For more reading on the subject of women's suffrage and wage inequality, check out the links below. At some point I will also type up May Belle Baker's essay and post it in its entirety.
Wikipedia article on Women's Suffrage
Many women fret about financial security: study
Searching for equality: Law's anniversary shows much work still remains
US Census Press Release for Women's History Month, March 2006
