1915 Editorials Against Women’s Suffrage, Randolph, Alabama http://files.usgwarchives.net/al/randolph/newspapers/womenvote.txt ============================================= USGENWEB PROJECT NOTICE: In keeping with the USGenWeb policy of providing free information on the Internet, this data may be used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic pages cannot be reproduced in any format for profit or for presentation by other persons or organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material for purposes other than stated above must obtain the written consent of the file contributor. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Project Archives to store the file permanently for free access. This file is copyrighted and contributed by: William Fischer, Jr. ============================================= December 2003 The Ballot for Women Not Needed in Alabama ---------------------------- The question of conferring the franchise upon the women of America is rapidly coming to be one of the live[lie]st issues of the day. The person who cannot see this is, indeed, hard to convince, and the one who does not recognize that there is argument to sustain the claim of those clamoring for this extension of the suffrage must be still slower to perceive the truth. The time has passed when this contention can be “laughed out o[f] court.” Argument must be met by argument. The proposition is a debatable one. The writer believes that a fair statement of the case would take into account local conditions. In other words, the ballot might be allowed the women of one state or section with more reason and propriety than in another state or section. Hence, as no moral principle is involved, and the action of one state on this question would not seriously affect another state, certainly not in the blessings of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” The Leader favors action upon this question by the individual states. Moreover, while opposing the whole propaganda for reasons which appear to us to be good, we are particularly impressed that there is no need for the enfranchising of the women of the South, and that the thrusting out of the women of this section into the whirlpool of politics would be both unfortunate and unprofitable. Specific reasons for this opinion we will not here and now undertake to set forth, but will proceed to some more general observations. In the early years of the crusade now being promoted under the misleading name of “equal suffrage,” the term used to designate it was “woman’s rights.” The idea of “rights” is still put forward in pleading for this radical extension of the franchise. Yet it must be admitted to begin with that the franchise is not an inherent, universal right, but a privilege extended by the government, under certain restrictions and regulations. On this point we have but to note the many restrictions thrown around the ballot box by the federal government and by the various state governments. If “equal suffrage” be a right, then the United States government is guilty of a flagrant wrong in not enfranchising her dependents, the people of our island possessions, also her wards in the West, the Indians, and every immigrant who lands on our shores. On the doctrine of inherent rights the state of Alabama should place the ballot in the hands of thousands of people, white and black, who are not now entitled to it under the law. The unhappy results of these conclusions, if carried out, are so apparent that no sound argument can stand on the doctrine of equal rights. The government of the United States, the states being considered collectively, is founded upon the principle of the voice of the people ruling, yet this principle is necessarily safe-guarded by certain limitations. Who should provide these restrictions? In the first place those who fought for freedom and founded this republic, having hallowed it with their blood. In doing so they handed down to us certain principles and precedents by which their political sussessors [sic], their own flesh and blood, might profit. However, these successors have the privilege and the power to alter, abolish or amend many of the provisions passed down to us from those early days. A growing country and changing conditions may call for such changes in some cases, either in national or state constitutions. This brings us fairly to the issue shall the constitution of Alabama be so changed as to include women in our electorate? We have not space to enter fully into the answer that we feel is hereby called for. This question raises interrogations: Does this class of women who would be mentally and morally fitted for safely handling the ballot really want it? Do they actually need it? And would they use it if they had it? We believe from our knowledge and observation of them that a negative answer would be justified to each of the above queries. If this be true, then it would seem that the question might fairly be considered closed for the present. If the women of our state were treated as serfs, if their interests were legislated against by the men, or even if a masculine electorate persisted in setting traps for the destruction of the children of the mothers of Alabama, we would recognize the merit of the proposition to give them the ballot in such an emergency. But happily no such conditions exist today. It is difficult to see what we would gain by enfranchising our women. There are certainly some invaluable things to lose. Whenever a woman takes on mannish ways and walks in paths properly provided for man alone to pursue, she must lose in that admiration which all true gentlemen hold for womanhood, peculiarly so in the South. There are delicate lines of distinction along here, some of them traced by the hand of the Creator, which we will pursue no farther at this time. We will notice, in conclusion, however, one point made by the suffragettes. They object to being left, on the question of voting, in the class with the criminals, the imbeciles and other classes of our people that are debarred from voting. They also say they wish to vote in order to purify politics. As voters can they any more reform the corrupt element in our electorate whose existence they thus admit, than they have succeeded, as non-voters, in reforming the undesirable elements among the disfranchised? The classification is not one of morals or mentality; it is one of sex, one of relationship. The question is not one of comparative capacity; it is one of propriety and of the finer fitness of things. The proposition is not one of rights, but of expediency. The most sacred thing is this world is that of the home—the harbor of love and peace and trust— and woman is the maker of the home and the custodian of these gems. There is no more fruitful field of discord, prejudice and strife than that of politics. Let us keep these two worlds well walled apart. [From The Roanoke Leader (Randolph County, Alabama), 5 May 1915, p.4] ---------------------------- [Title Unavailable, from a community correspondent] ---------------------------- We had been hoping The Leader would sooner or later give us an editorial on the woman suffrage question. And we were glad the editor had courage to do so in last week's issue. And we certainly agree on this question. Alabama has been sufficiently qualified to run her own political affairs without enfranchisement of women ever since she became a state. So the writer, being one of the fair sex, would not do myself an injustice by belittling my own self respect by going to the polls to vote, for I am quite willing to let well enough alone. The men have been able to carry on their own affairs since creation of Adam. Now, let's not try to take a man's place. Home is woman's place, and mothers should remember that if they rear their sons right they will more than likely vote for the right man in the right place. [From The Roanoke Leader (Randolph County, Alabama), 12 May 1915, p.8]