During the spring of 1878
Indianapolis society crackled with “mysterious whisperings” concerning a
proposed meeting involving women in the community with “advanced ideas” about
their proper place in society. A secret call drew ten people—nine women and one
man—to a gathering at Circle Hall.
Although the issue of improved
rights for women had been seriously debated in Indiana as far back as the
1850s—and Indiana had been one of the first states in the country to form a
woman’s suffrage organization—most respectable citizens considered the idea
radical at best.
“Had we convened consciously
to plot the ruin of our domestic life,” noted one participant, “which opponents
predict as the result of woman’s enfranchisement, we could not have looked more
guilty or have moved about with more unnatural stealth.” The conservative atmosphere
that dominated Indianapolis could be seen from the group’s taking more than two
hours to discuss whether or not the new society should take a name for itself
that would clearly advertise its goal, or one that would hide it from the
outside world.
About a month after this
initial meeting, twenty-six people attended a second gathering and formed the
Indianapolis Equal Suffrage Society. The society consisted of men and women
“willing to labor for the attainment of equal rights at the ballot-box for all
citizens on the same conditions.”
The Society followed a path
blazed by such early pioneers in the fight for women’s rights as New Harmony’s
Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen, who fought in the Indiana Constitutional
Convention of 1850 and 1851 to include in the new state constitution provisions
guaranteeing a woman’s right to hold property. Indiana’s early property laws,
said one Indiana historian, were based upon an English common law tradition
that viewed women as “perpetual juveniles.”
Owen wrote Susan B. Anthony that
although he campaigned on behalf of property rights for women while in the
legislature, he did nothing in regard to suffrages. “In those days,” he said,
“it would have been utterly unavailing.”
Owen had a solid basis for
his pessimistic outlook. Many of his fellow delegates at the constitutional
convention were appalled by his efforts to enhance property rights for women.
One delegate claimed that if the convention adopted Owen’s measure, “it would
be to throw a whole population morally and politically into confusion. Is it
necessary to explode a volcano under the foundation of the family union?”
Another delegate rather piously stated that he opposed Owen’s proposal, “not
because I love justice less, but women more.”
Writing about the views of
that time, Indiana historian Jacob P. Dunn Jr. said that those women who were
brave enough to advocate on behalf of for votes for their sex “were subjects of
almost universal condemnation and ridicule, and the great majority of women
shrank from anything that savored of political publicity.”
There were some in Indiana,
however, bold enough to consider the shocking notion that a woman should be
allowed to vote. At an anti-slavery meeting in Greensboro in 1851, Amanda Way,
an abolitionist, prohibitionist, and licensed minister, offered a resolution
declaring that women were “being oppressed and degraded by the laws and customs
of our country, and are in but little better condition than chattel slaves.”
To help remedy the situation,
Way, who when asked once why she never married replied, “I never had the time,”
called for holding a women’s right convention. In October 1851 at Dublin,
Indiana, a group of women met for a “full, free, and candid discussion of the
legal and social position of women,” said Way.
A year after the Dublin
meeting during a convention in Richmond, the Indiana Woman’s Rights Association
was formed. Elected as the organization’s vice president, Way insisted that unless
women demanded their political, social, and economic rights—including
suffrage—they would continue “in the future, as in the past, to be classed with
criminals, insane persons, idiots, and infants.” In 1859 the association
presented a petition to the Indiana General Assembly, signed by a thousand men
and women, seeking for women not only the same property rights as men, but also
asking that the state constitution be amended to extend the right to vote to
women. The legislature accepted the petition and passed it along to a
committee, which, to no one’s surprise, decided that the time was not yet right
to grant Hoosier women such privileges.
After this high-water mark,
which included the first woman speaker to appear at the legislature, the
women’s rights movement in Indiana came to a standstill because of an
overriding national emergency—the Civil War. The Woman’s Rights Association
held no meetings from 1859 to 1869, years, association minutes noted, when
suffragists were giving their time, labor, money, and even lives to the cause
of freedom. The association reconstituted itself after the war as the Indiana
Woman’s Suffrage Association and sponsored its first meeting in ten years from
June 8 to 9, 1869, at Indianapolis’s Masonic Hall. The gathering received
positive notices from the Indianapolis
Journal, which noted, somewhat condescendingly, that the assembly “compared
favorably with the best that have ever been conducted by our own sex.”
Women still faced a long road
to equal rights in the state. In the 1870s Zeralda Wallace, the widow of
Governor David Wallace and president of the Woman’s Christian TemperanceUnion’s Indiana chapter, attempted to present to the state legislature a
petition supporting temperance signed by thousands of Hoosier women—she faced
“open contempt” by the lawmakers. One legislator even went as far as to tell
Wallace that since women held not political power, her petition “might as well
have been signed by 10,000 mice.”
By the 1880s, however, the
tide seemed to shift. In December 1880 the Indianapolis suffrage society issued
a letter to each legislator and to leading newspapers in the state indicating
that during the next session of the Indiana General Assembly the group would
seek action on the suffrage question. Suffragists were determined to make a
two-pronged attack on the legislature. One was to seek passage of a bill that
would “immediately authorize women to vote for presidential electors.” The
second involved approval of an amendment to the state constitution allowing women
to vote in all elections.
Although the presidential
elector bill, introduced by Marion County representative John W. Furnas, passed
two readings in the House, it fell three votes short of making it past a third
reading.
Failure in one area, however,
did not mean the dashing of all the suffragists’ hopes. The regular legislative
session had expired before lawmakers had the opportunity to act on important
state matters. Therefore, the legislators had to remain in Indianapolis for a
special session from March 8 to April 16. The special session gave Indiana
women the opportunity to pursue their second route for winning the right to
vote: amending article two, section two of the state constitution to give women
the vote in all elections.
On March 15 Furnas introduced
a resolution in the House outlining a constitutional amendment giving Hoosier
women the right to vote. The resolution passed the House on April 7 and, one
day later, the Senate followed suit by approving the resolution.
The battle for woman’s
suffrage in Indiana, however, was far from over. According to the terms of
Indiana’s constitution, any amendment to it had to be passed by two consecutive
legislatures and then sent on to voters for their approval. Recognizing the
difficult road ahead, the Indianapolis suffrage group worked feverishly to attract
supporters to its cause.
When the Indiana General
Assembly opened for business in January 1883, the suffragists faced firm
opposition from the Democratic Party, which controlled both houses of the
legislature. Instead of risking a direct vote against the suffrage and
temperance amendments, Democrats argued that all the proposed constitutional
amendments, which seemed to have been approved by the previous legislature, had
in fact not been legally adopted because they had not been properly entered in
the journals of either the House or Senate. A majority report from the senate
judiciary committee claimed that there was no evidence in the journals to
indicate that either the houses of the legislature “referred, or intended to
refer, a proposition to amend the Constitution to this Assembly.”