Women's Suffrage

[Alon]

I put this in before-1900, because by 1900, the writing was already on the wall for the core democratic states.

My question is, with a reasonably late POD (say, post-1700, so the Industrial Revolution happens on schedule), how far can you move suffrage, in either direction?

We know that, as an edge case, Switzerland took until 1971, but maybe it's not so easy to have a POD that makes that the first time any democracy gives women the right to vote.

In the other direction, how likely would it be for women to be allowed to vote on the same basis as men around 1800? Some Enlightenment philosophers believed in women's suffrage (Montesquieu, and also Tom Paine if he counts). The Girondists debated between universal suffrage and universal male suffrage, although their proposed constitution ended up going with the latter.

 

[TFSmith121]

In the US, womens' suffrage was certainly a possibility

In the US, womens' suffrage was certainly a possibility in the later half of the Nineteenth; Seneca Falls in 1848 provided the concept as a political reform, and womens' suffrage was among the possiblilities in the post-Civil War era. Wyoming Territory granted women the right to vote in 1869, and maintained that right at statehood in 1890; Dakota Territory came within one vote of doing so in 1869.

As usual, civil and political rights were demanded as the price for wartime service and support; given a more demanding Civil War where women serve more intensely - whether in the service as such or the war economy - it's entirely possible suffrage could come about in the US on a national level in the 1860s or 1870.

Best,

 

[Falecius]

I put this in before-1900, because by 1900, the writing was already on the wall for the core democratic states.

My question is, with a reasonably late POD (say, post-1700, so the Industrial Revolution happens on schedule), how far can you move suffrage, in either direction?

We know that, as an edge case, Switzerland took until 1971, but maybe it's not so easy to have a POD that makes that the first time any democracy gives women the right to vote.

In the other direction, how likely would it be for women to be allowed to vote on the same basis as men around 1800? Some Enlightenment philosophers believed in women's suffrage (Montesquieu, and also Tom Paine if he counts). The Girondists debated between universal suffrage and universal male suffrage, although their proposed constitution ended up going with the latter.

Sweden had limited women suffrage in 1774 IIRC, so the notion was certainly there early.
If you play something along the lines of Olympe de Gouges being more influential (probably requiring no Terror in Revolutionary France, or a very different one) you could have female suffrage as an integral part of the French Revolution package, which would move things considerably uptime-wards (is this even a word?) in Europe. Not very easy, but interesting possibility.
Also note that some cantons in Switzerland resisted female suffrage a lot longer than 1971, with Outer Appenzell finally giving in only in 1991.
This gives you a measure of what could be done, for instance, in a no World Wars TL (which is not really very likely, but still).

 

[Falecius]

In the US, womens' suffrage was certainly a possibility in the later half of the Nineteenth; Seneca Falls in 1848 provided the concept as a political reform, and womens' suffrage was among the possiblilities in the post-Civil War era. Wyoming Territory granted women the right to vote in 1869, and maintained that right at statehood in 1890; Dakota Territory came within one vote of doing so in 1869.

As usual, civil and political rights were demanded as the price for wartime service and support; given a more demanding Civil War where women serve more intensely - whether in the service as such or the war economy - it's entirely possible suffrage could come about in the US on a national level in the 1860s or 1870.

Best,

Didn't a New England state, either Connecticut or Rhode Island IIRC, had limited female suffrage sometime around the 1800's? It was later repealed for some decades and reinstated at a later time I think, but I don't recall the specifics.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Didn't a New England state, either Connecticut or Rhode Island IIRC, had limited female suffrage sometime around the 1800's? It was later repealed for some decades and reinstated at a later time I think, but I don't recall the specifics.

I think at least one of the Thirteen Colonies had female suffrage, at least in theory: the law stipulated that those who owned property above a certain level could vote, without specifying that this only applied to men. Of course, back then it was extremely unusual for women to own enough property in their own name, so this very rarely happened; indeed, part of me is tempted to suggest that, if women had commonly qualified for the franchise, they'd have changed the franchise laws to specifically exclude them.

 

[Alon]

Didn't a New England state, either Connecticut or Rhode Island IIRC, had limited female suffrage sometime around the 1800's? It was later repealed for some decades and reinstated at a later time I think, but I don't recall the specifics.

It was New Jersey. As Fabius Maximus notes, it was a byproduct of property qualifications, and was then rescinded.

The same is true of England, in the sense that until the first Reform Act, there was no explicit rule saying only men could vote - but there were Common Law rules against women owning property in their own names, so only men could meet the property qualifications for voting.

 

[Falecius]

It was New Jersey. As Fabius Maximus notes, it was a byproduct of property qualifications, and was then rescinded.

The same is true of England, in the sense that until the first Reform Act, there was no explicit rule saying only men could vote - but there were Common Law rules against women owning property in their own names, so only men could meet the property qualifications for voting.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Quimporte]

It was New Jersey. As Fabius Maximus notes, it was a byproduct of property qualifications, and was then rescinded.

The same is true of England, in the sense that until the first Reform Act, there was no explicit rule saying only men could vote - but there were Common Law rules against women owning property in their own names, so only men could meet the property qualifications for voting.

Actually, it wasn't just a byproduct of property qualifications. At first only landholders could vote, and landholding women only got the vote because the law didn't technically say that they couldn't. Near the end of the century, the law was changed, but not the way you'd think: the new New Jersey Constituition specified that men and women who met the property qualifications were able to vote. Only after the Jeffersonians swept the country was the law changed again to exclude women -- the Dem-Reps feared that women would vote Federalist. (For an interesting article on the subject: http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/archive/vol63/Issue3/Lewis.pdf)

On another note, I think women's suffrage could come a lot earlier without the untimely deaths of so many early feminists -- Mary Wollstonecraft and Margaret Fuller spring to mind.

 

[obamaslovechild]

https://youtu.be/N4iTZrbxdeI I know that this is a serious subject but it reminded me of a skit from the Man Show.

Enjoy

 

[obamaslovechild]

Oops, that wasnt the one I was looking for.

 

[GeographyDude]

If you play something along the lines of Olympe de Gouges being more influential (probably requiring no Terror in Revolutionary France, or a very different one) you could have female suffrage as an integral part of the French Revolution package, which would move things considerably uptime-wards (is this even a word?) in Europe. Not very easy, but interesting possibility.

Yes, it seems like in a genuine revolution, esp. against a monarch or dictator but really any revolution, that one of the first things to do is call for a moratorium on executions, even in plain old criminal cases.

That way, you can better focus on positive things and actually get some stuff done.

 

[Alon]

By the way: my main TL has France going for universal suffrage in 1845. In that particular story I was going for putting various revolutions together: universal suffrage, abolition of slavery, republicanism, democracy, language rights for minorities, civil law. After the constitution is signed guaranteeing suffrage, a movement of goons emerges to intimidate women who don't vote the way their husbands tell them to. Just as with abolition in OTL's US, legal rights are not always the same as actual rights.

That said, the TL ends up being somewhat of a feminism-wank* later on. First female governor of a province is elected in 1845, but is part of the radical revolutionary generation, and leaves in 1855, and after her the first woman (in the same province) is in 1890. First president is 1930, and by then there's a growing cadre of women in politics; from 1930 to 2015, 9 out of 17 presidential terms have had a woman as president, and by the 1990s, there's parity between male and female governors. Ultimately it comes from a maturation of female political empowerment, in the same way that OTL's civil rights generation came out of a maturation of black empowerment following abolition. (Thus, in a TL where the US abolishes slavery in 1831, on the British schedule, civil rights should happen a generation earlier.)

The wage gap still exists, but is smaller than in OTL across the board. All political parties claim to support feminism (in OTL's Sweden, the Liberals, a center-right party, campaigned on the slogan "feminism without socialism" last year). Sexual assault is explicitly seen as the domain of conservative feminists, bundled into a general tough-on-crime stance, hostility to sex work, and fear of immigrants and minorities.

*There's probably a better way to phrase that.

 

[Falecius]

Yes, it seems like in a genuine revolution, esp. against a monarch or dictator but really any revolution, that one of the first things to do is call for a moratorium on executions, even in plain old criminal cases.

That way, you can better focus on positive things and actually get some stuff done.

This feeling was clearly not shared by French Revolutionaries.

 

[guinazacity]

This feeling was clearly not shared by French Revolutionaries.

We can get this moratorium

But only after we finish off the nobility.

 

[Alon]

We can get this moratorium

But only after we finish off the nobility.

Apparently, the first person executed by guillotine after the Revolution was a highway robber, and not a noble or anything like that.

 

[GeographyDude]

This feeling was clearly not shared by French Revolutionaries.

No, it wasnt, but it should have been. The Revolution should have been about more than just getting even with the previous tyrants.

For example, whatever the 1789 version of grain elevators and railroads, the quasi-monopolies which cheat farmers, that would be a very good start, including using eminent domain, including setting up businesses to just flat out outcompete them.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

No, it wasnt, but it should have been. The Revolution should have been about more than just getting even with the previous tyrants.

For example, whatever the 1789 version of grain elevators and railroads, the quasi-monopolies which cheat farmers, that would be a very good start, including using eminent domain, including setting up businesses to just flat out outcompete them.

Too bad for that annoying thing called human nature...

 

[GeographyDude]

Apparently, the first person executed by guillotine after the Revolution was a highway robber, and not a noble or anything like that.

Interesting.

I was going to write, a moratorium even in plain old criminal cases, subject to review by a judge. But it's just going to end up being a pro forma review.

Maybe if we pick a country known for having humane prisons and say, prisons as humane as ____.

And frankly, maybe something more evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

 

[GeographyDude]

Too bad for that annoying thing called human nature...

No one said it was going to be easy!

Revenge runs deep in the human heart. And so does boredom. Which I think is a big reason and very much under-appreciated for why people go along with various destructive actions.

 

[deathscompanion1]

No, it wasnt, but it should have been. The Revolution should have been about more than just getting even with the previous tyrants.

For example, whatever the 1789 version of grain elevators and railroads, the quasi-monopolies which cheat farmers, that would be a very good start, including using eminent domain, including setting up businesses to just flat out outcompete them.

They were not previous. They were invading France from multiple fronts, placing it under blockade and sponsoring revolts within France and the military, financial and diplomatic situations could all be summed up in just one rude word.


To the revolutionaries this was do or die and doing involved liquidating those internal enemies that were potentially the most dangerous. But once you start killing people you kick open the door and expose yourself to counter violence or your own rivals doing so. The Terror was butchery on an industrial scale but its origins were based on fanatics fearing other fanatics actively working to destroy them.