There is a common misconception involving movements for women’s suffrage during the

Progressive Era. To fully understand the suffrage movements, one must also understand the anti-

suffragists movements as well. Although many rumors would have been spread claiming anti-

suffragists were merely pawns controlled by men. This is not so, anti-suffragists were composed

of both women and men. The same is true for the pro suffrage movement as well. Even though

pro-suffrage groups often embellished their number of women supporters, the reality was that

women were split into three groups regarding suffrage. A third supported suffrage, a third

supported anti-suffrage, and the remaining third were indifferent to the movement. The false

count of women for suffrage coupled with the fact that anti-suffragists left no notes, writings,

scrapbooks, or autobiographies left it up to the history to be written by pro-suffragists. No

wonder it’s difficult to see the flip side of the opposition. Indeed there were many women that

would begin supporting suffrage and often switched to the anti-suffragist movements.

The major theme for the “antis” was for women to unite for the common good, instead of risking the

division along party lines as men did in politics. Those who were clubwomen trusted they had more

power of influence on lawmakers without suffrage than they would with suffrage. They also feared the

demise of democracy as it was meant to be with women’s suffrage taking place. Popular belief was that

respectable married women secured a morally sound lifestyle. Whereas the morals of the men involved

in politics were questionable at best. The “antis” supported this balance that was already in existence.

The women who supported the anti-suffragists did not want to get mixed up in an already corrupt

political system.
Although there were different agendas between anti-suffragists and pro-suffragist, there were also

many commonalities. Both groups believed in things such as prohibition, protecting their children, and a

say so in public reforms. The main difference is the Anti-suffragists simply did not want on the ballot or

be involved in the political arena. This led to these like-minded women to disagree on how to make

reform happen. There was widespread misconception that women had zero influence with the

lawmakers. The “antis” abhorrently denied this, proving their stance with the fact that laws favoring

women in anti-suffragist states outnumbered these same laws from being passed in suffrage states.

Anti-suffragist leaders strongly favored women influencing both lawmakers and society. They just

preferred to use non-partisan methods to accomplish these tasks. Many were reluctant to move from

the known operation of society to the unknown. Many women in the progressive era were quite

content with their roles in American society. They did not view the right to vote as a right, rather a

responsibility and a burden they didn’t have the time for.

Anti-suffragists were concerned that if women were put on the ballot, it would invite women such as

immigrant, southern black women, or any women lacking education or ability to read the right to vote.

It seems understandable that uneducated people could threaten our society when given that right.

However, the pro-suffragists had these same reservations. They expected voters to possess a well-

researched background and an education about the American political system.

One thing is clear, the antis did not oppose the idea of the modern woman. They actually encouraged

women’s involvement in society, education, philanthropy, business, etc. They found necessity in

division of labor in men vs. women based on each genders God given strengths. Thereby promoting

continuing prosperity for the United States.