This is 2020, the centennial of passage of the 19th Amendment. It should be one good thing to celebrate in a year with too few good things. Despite the pandemic and chaos, numerous grand events are going on to celebrate the Amendment for giving women the right to vote. The suggestion always underlying those words is all women.
Yet, the 19th Amendment was no more universal suffrage for women than the 15th Amendment was universal suffrage for men. In context, the 19th Amendment probably did less than the 15th. Because of the 15th Amendment African American men actually gained voting rights for the period immediately following the Civil War. Then came systematic denial of voting rights, the hallmark of Jim Crow, until at least 1965, with remnants continuing to this day.
In other words, by 1920, when the 19th Amendment was
added to the Constitution, voting rights for men of color had already been stolen,
especially in the South. And, for all
intents and purposes, the 19th Amendment was irrelevant for women of
color, particularly in the South.
Also, the 19th Amendment in 1920 came before the
1924 Indian Citizenship Act. It is odd
even to type that last fact. All native-born
Indigenous people were not recognized as U.S. citizens until 1924 and thereby were
denied the right to vote until 1924. By
interpretation, Native Americans fell outside the reach of the 14th
Amendment, despite its clear language: All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside.
So, in its effect, the 19th Amendment did not do
what we commonly say it did and want to celebrate it for doing 100 years ago.
But what about its intent?
Was universal suffrage its intent?
We may try to comfort our privileged white selves into thinking the 19th
Amendment did not have racist intent. The
historical record, however, suggests otherwise. To find this out, we must dig deep, beyond the
whitewashed tales we call history.
Here is what I managed personally to dig up.
A year or more ago the Library of Congress called for
volunteers to transcribe suffragist papers – letters, speeches, diaries, etc. –
online. Crowdsourcing the effort seemed
to make sense, especially since the LOC could depend on free, largely female
labor to do the work.
I signed up because I can type and thought the content would
be interesting. I could quench my interest
in history and learn more about the suffragists from primary sources, their own words. I did learn more, but not what I expected to learn. As I recall, I got through no more than two
letters.
Why did I stop? The
content was so thoroughly racist I would no longer contribute
my time to the effort. Within the confines of correspondence not written for public consumption, the racism was laid bare.
This presents an obvious conundrum. Getting the racist underbelly of the women’s suffrage movement out in full display has real value because it has been so well hidden. I agree that transparency is a good thing, sunshine is the best disinfectant. But I could not in good conscience contribute any more of my time transcribing the racist words of my foremothers. Frankly, it made me want to go take a shower.
So, dear readers and fellow members of the League of Women
Voters, please forgive me if I cannot fully buy into your celebrations of the centennial
of the 19th Amendment. Until the
real history is told, I have nothing to celebrate.
