American women offered suffrage from the beginning

Hi!

I'm not sure whether this is ASB, but how would American history have developed if the Constitution offered women the vote from the very beginning?

I would argue that a good way to start off would be that if a man could vote (met the property requirements and stuff) his wife could as well. Single women who met the property requirements could also vote.
 
Hi!

I'm not sure whether this is ASB, but how would American history have developed if the Constitution offered women the vote from the very beginning?

I would argue that a good way to start off would be that if a man could vote (met the property requirements and stuff) his wife could as well. Single women who met the property requirements could also vote.

Only the latter is plausible--and indeed happened in New Jersey. "Not all women in New Jersey received the right to vote, as America abided by British laws of coverture. In Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone explained coverture as, “The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, and cover she performs everything.” ((Blackstone, William. “Ch. 15.” In Commentaries on the laws of England in four books. New ed. Philadelphia: Geo T. Bisel, 1922. 422)) As coverture laws applied in New Jersey, women’s legal entities were absorbed into their husbands’ upon marriage, revoking their financial independence and prohibiting them from owning property. Since monetary value was a pretense to vote, only unmarried women and widows were eligible." http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/
 
There would be a much quicker end to the legality of marital rape. You'd probably see a few women in political offices. I doubt America's view of blacks or Native Americans would change from OTL.
 
Only the latter is plausible--and indeed happened in New Jersey. "Not all women in New Jersey received the right to vote, as America abided by British laws of coverture. In Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone explained coverture as, “The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, and cover she performs everything.” ((Blackstone, William. “Ch. 15.” In Commentaries on the laws of England in four books. New ed. Philadelphia: Geo T. Bisel, 1922. 422)) As coverture laws applied in New Jersey, women’s legal entities were absorbed into their husbands’ upon marriage, revoking their financial independence and prohibiting them from owning property. Since monetary value was a pretense to vote, only unmarried women and widows were eligible." http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/

Interesting - could a woman be her husband's proxy if he was away? Like she was the governor of his estate when he was not there.

What about nobles? In the Scottish peerage a title is often held by a woman, with her husband the appendage in that sense. Could this be reflected?

What about heirs? If a landowner only has female heirs, could they vote as his heirs? This would reflect male practice in the medieval Lords where sons of a lord had their own voting identity in many cases.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Hi!

I'm not sure whether this is ASB, but how would American history have developed if the Constitution offered women the vote from the very beginning?

I would argue that a good way to start off would be that if a man could vote (met the property requirements and stuff) his wife could as well. Single women who met the property requirements could also vote.

Well, as nice as that would have been, it would have been a real stretch, to say the least. Although New Jersey, amazingly, actually *did* allow some women to vote(though it's not for certain whether or not their votes counted towards a Presidential Election, either there or anywhere else, before 1920; that may have depended on the state laws.), just after the Revolution.

I can, however, possibly see the argument being made that, in any state that allows any, or all, women the vote, that their votes should automatically count towards Federal as well as state and local elections.....though more around the 1820s, maybe, than the 1780s.

America's views on African-Americans and the indigenous people may change from OTL to a certain degree, but it may not necessarily be related directly to women's earlier participation in state politics.....on the other hand, it very well could(it kinda goes without saying that women tended not to be as conservative as men, even then.).
 
Only the latter is plausible--and indeed happened in New Jersey. "Not all women in New Jersey received the right to vote, as America abided by British laws of coverture. In Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone explained coverture as, “The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, and cover she performs everything.” ((Blackstone, William. “Ch. 15.” In Commentaries on the laws of England in four books. New ed. Philadelphia: Geo T. Bisel, 1922. 422)) As coverture laws applied in New Jersey, women’s legal entities were absorbed into their husbands’ upon marriage, revoking their financial independence and prohibiting them from owning property. Since monetary value was a pretense to vote, only unmarried women and widows were eligible." http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/

That may have been the way the law was written - but in actual practice, the property requirements were not well enforced by the 1790s, and large numbers of women (married or otherwise not meeting property qualifications) did vote on a regular basis in New Jersey.

In addition, while such measures were ad hoc, and not explicitly written into law like in New Jersey, records from the colonial era and early days of the republic do indicate that some women did vote in Massachusetts and New York. Though in these cases, the property requirements were followed, and as such only widows are known to have voted, and any granting of the franchise not written into state code.

(though it's not for certain whether or not their votes counted towards a Presidential Election, either there or anywhere else, before 1920; that may have depended on the state laws.)

Until 1804, nobody in New Jersey directly voted in presidential elections - the state legislature picked the electors.
 
Last edited:
To a certain extent, the amount of rights will be limited for the same reason women's rights were for the era. What finally allowed women to leave the centuries old positions of housewives and child rearers wasn't the women't rights movement - it was technology and mass production. Someone doesn't stay home to cook food or clean clothing in the era before we had appliances or industries to do it for us, folks went without. Save for rich families that hired other people - or in the case of Southerners, enslaved people to do it for them, that means even with the right to vote, most women aren't exactly going to be running for office and the like.
 
tumblr_lbcdjyfp061qa49tx.jpg

Sadly we are talking about a society where men have been the dominate creatures and women are these fragile little things that can only cook clean and make babies.
wnp.ws.Illustration.jpg

In our 21st century 21/21 vision we can see this but back then it was scary even for the women themselves.

4039363_orig.gif


The New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage was founded in 1897, and by 1908 it had over 90 members. The New York association had its own magazine, first The Anti-Suffragist published by Mrs. William Winslow Crannell from July 1908 to April 1912, later The Woman's Protest produced by the organization at large.
 
I suppose coverture style situation could get in at the Federal level. Not sure what would have to change for this to be plausible.

With a decent number of female voters from the beginning there could be all sorts of political butterflies, and there could be a chance for increased women's suffrage when property qualifications for voting are done away with generally, especially if it ends up happening later than OTL, giving the women's rights movement more time to grow, and for people to get used to the idea of at least single propertied women voting.
 
Putting it into the Constitution is indeed ASB - the American framers were very clear on the idea that States decided who did and didn't have the right to vote. Any verbage on the question would have met with near-universal opposition, and for something as quixotic as enfranchising women, that opposition would certainly prevail.
That said, it's not as hard as you might think at the state level, at least in the North. John Adams and Aaron Burr were both in favor of it, the latter almost fanatically so...have them work in their home states of Massachusetts and New York to enfranchise women there (presumably by keeping Burr out of the VP slot and in the governor's mansion instead), and once successful, it will spread.
 
Top