SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
THE PETTICOAT REBELLION OF 1916
WOMEN GAIN RIGHT TO VOTE, SUCCEED IN OVERTHROWING GOVERNMENT
Or something like that, might have been Newspaper Headlines of the day.
The real story is that on December 5th, 1916, the polls opened at 8:00am in the small town of Umatilla, Oregon, for a municipal election. And there was not a woman in sight.
Until.
At 2pm, the women showed up in droves and with write-in ballots, they proceeded to elect an all-woman council: a coup d'etat, of sorts.
The story is at:
https://www.damninteresting.com/the-petticoat-rebellion-of-1916/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/63262/laura-starcher-and-petticoat-revolution-1916
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Petticoat Rebellion: Women 'Hack' an Election
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 53 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
While most peoples' opinions change, the conviction of their
correctness never does.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday December 05 2016, @09:39PM
i think it was either wyoming or montana who had woman voters before becoming state, AND they made it a condition that woman could keep their vote upon entering the union !
(went to google/wikipedia to fihure out which state, but wasnt mentioned in the first 3-4 screens about womens suffrage, AND my tablet gets weird where websites get these shifting blackout rectangles all over the page, so couldnt get info easily)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:50PM
Full Voting Rights before 19th Amendment and before statehood
Territory of Wyoming 1869
Territory of Utah 1870
Territory of Washington 1883
Territory of Montana 1887
Territory of Alaska 1913
Could vote for President prior to the 19th Amendment
Illinois 1913
Nebraska 1917
Ohio 1917
Indiana 1917
North Dakota 1917
Rhode Island 1917
Iowa 1919
Maine 1919
Minnesota 1919
Missouri 1919
Tennessee 1919
Wisconsin 1919
http://constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw08_12159.html [constitutioncenter.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @10:12PM
Actually, as the standard was only landowners could vote; there were women landowners. And that was as far back as 1776.
What people are really referring to is universal women's suffrage, which happened in 1919. Universal male suffrage (not tied to conscription) hasn't really happened yet.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 05 2016, @10:25PM
Don't forget that felons are third-rate citizens for life (because we don't believe in rehabilitation), so there is no hope for "universal" any time soon.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @10:28PM
Which is why I stated mostly.
Failing to register with Selective Service is a felony, which in most states disqualifies you from voting.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday December 05 2016, @11:25PM
This is true in only 9 states. In most states a felon may vote after serving their sentence. In Maine and Vermont even incarcerated felons may vote.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx [ncsl.org]
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday December 05 2016, @11:17PM
Actually, as the standard was only landowners could vote; there were women landowners. And that was as far back as 1776.
Yes, but in most states laws still specified white male landowners.
The only exception appears to be New Jersey, which had a VERY BRIEF experiment with female voting.
New Jersey had a vague clause in its Constitution in 1776 [jstor.org] that allowed suffrage to all landowners (using only a generic term "inhabitant") but still using "he" in voting laws, and this was further clarified in another statute in 1797 that explicitly used the language for voting as "he or she." It's unclear [rutgerslawreview.com] whether any women actually voted before 1797, but they clearly voted after 1797. That last link contains a passage from a report on voting in 1797 when the Federalists were apparently concerned about winning their votes, so they sent around carriages in the country to bring in farmers, and when they were still worried, "In this extremity they had recourse to the last expedient: it was to have women vote... They scurried around collecting them. I need not say that the number was very small." Republican toasts were apparently later raised to "the fair daughters of Columbia, those who voted in behalf of Jefferson and Burr."
And the news spread far and wide. Abigail Adams wrote to her sister lamenting that the Massachusetts Constitution was not as "liberal" as New Jersey's in "admitting females to a vote."
It should be noted that this law would only apply to propertied single women, since married women in most places couldn't own property (according to "coverture" laws that ceded any woman's property to her husband legally). The fact that apparently married women were daring to show up to the polls (along with men disguised as women, to vote multiple times) -- and reports that female votes actually may have provided the small margins to win some elections -- ultimately led to New Jersey's repeal of women's suffrage. That 1797 law was relatively quickly overturned in 1807, when New Jersey changed the standard to "free white males." In fact, the new 1807 statute was written in such a way as to imply it was only a clarification of previous law, which apparently -- according to the new law -- had NEVER intended to enfranchise women. As the link above puts it:
In ten short years it had become unimaginable to New Jersey's legislators that their predecessors had ever intended to enfranchise any women, or any blacks or aliens, either. And so the perimeters of the republic were pulled in, and New Jersey's brief experiment in an inclusive franchise was redefined as bad interpretation, and a piece of its history reimagined as nothing more than a bad dream."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:46AM
Yes, but in most states laws still specified white male landowners.
Ignoring the religious tests, people under 21, quantity of land requirement, poll taxes, etc. approximately 10% to 20% of the population could vote. There were numerous restrictions to voting
"The 1797 law shows that women could, and did vote during the Founding period. In fact, it is likely that women voted in New Jersey even before 1797. The state Constitution’s vague guarantee to “all inhabitants” probably allowed women to vote in the 1780s. Certainly, women’s suffrage was not a controversial issue in the state: the 1790 voting law was approved with only three dissenting votes in the Assembly. Despite this, women apparently did not vote in large numbers until after the passage of the 1797 law. There is no record of any public discourse on women voting until a 1797 legislative race in Elizabethtown, when the local women turned out en masse to decide a close election.
Women voted in large numbers until 1807, when the Assembly passed a law limiting suffrage to free white males. The 1807 law was not seen as specifically hostile to women; instead, it was intended to clarify the Constitution’s guarantee of the franchise to “all inhabitants.” Because some objected that “all inhabitants” could allow slaves and aliens to vote, the Assembly acted to clarify the state’s voting requirements. Interestingly, the women of New Jersey did not object to their exclusion with any rigor; they did not lobby or protest against the law."
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/new-jersey-recognizes-the-right-of-women-to-vote [heritage.org]
(Score: 2) by Marand on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:29AM
(went to google/wikipedia to fihure out which state, but wasnt mentioned in the first 3-4 screens about womens suffrage, AND my tablet gets weird where websites get these shifting blackout rectangles all over the page, so couldnt get info easily)
I know this is off topic, but I believe I used to have the same problem you're describing. You're using mobile firefox, am I correct? I used to have that same problem a lot with mobile FF on my old tablet. Seemed to be a memory thing, where the browser would start having tile corruption when it started using a lot of memory. No idea about a specific fix, I used to just force a full restart of the browser when it started to happen until I finally replaced the tablet with a newer one. That would make it work fine for a little while, then as I browsed it'd start to happen again.
Now that I think of it, though, I switched from Adblock Plus to uBlock Origin around the same time. I doubt that was the cause, but if you're using ABP you could try switching and seeing if it helps. That and maybe try blocking Javascript on sites, since they tend to use a lot of memory.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:18AM
well, thankee very much, stranger, not only hit the nail on the head, but i guess i will fish around for better alternative to firefox on tablet... kind of ditched chrome because i got tired of googs being eee-vil... (after they pwomised they wouldn't ! ! !)
it seems to happen to some sites MUCH more frequently than others: the intercept is nearly ALWAYS bad for the space odyssey monoliths showing up, zero hedge is another, and others... some seem to not do it at all, and some sporadically... definitely has a tendency to be after browsing a lot...
thanks again...
oh, actually annoys me that firefox tries to open up the last window state which caused it to shut down; been there, didn't do that, let's not, not do that again, shall we, firefox ? ? ?
(Score: 2) by Marand on Tuesday December 06 2016, @01:51AM
You probably won't find a better alternative; despite that annoyance I still preferred using mobile FF to the alternatives. Mobile Chrome's inability to use addons makes it borderline worthless, in my opinion; Opera has been garbage since they decided to become Chrome in an Opera skin suit; and the rest of the mobile browsers just seem to be Chrome reskins from unknown sources, sending data off to their servers in random countries and somehow managing to make Google look like the lesser evil.
I went down this route when Firefox started frustrating me and ultimately ended up right back on Firefox. The only other browser worth using was the old pre-Chromification Opera, but I don't even think that's on the android app store any more and even if it is, it's unusable on higher resolution devices.
Good luck with it either way, I remember it being a huge pain in the ass. To add to the earlier advice, since it seems to be a memory thing, the best things you can do to reduce memory consumption are probably 1. see if any addon is a hog (Adblock Plus might be, as I mentioned, Ghostery as well), 2. try blocking Javascript because it's a source of massive memory use, and 3. try an image blocker like "Mobile Image Blocker" to try not loading images on sites that are troublesome.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:11AM
I've been using Palemoon, seems to work well and can use most Firefox extensions
(Score: 2) by Marand on Tuesday December 06 2016, @11:16PM
Thanks, but the desktop version of Firefox is still working fine for me for now, and it still has official support for Linux, unlike Palemoon. (I'm aware of the unofficial PM Linux builds.) I might have to switch later but for now I'm sticking with Debian's ESR builds of FF.
I believe you missed that the discussion was about mobile browsers, though, unless you're just extremely eager to bring up PM in conversations ;)
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 06 2016, @11:53PM
I'm talking about the mobile version of Palemoon that I use on my cellphone and on my tablet.
I use SeaMonkey on the desktop.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:26AM
Oh cool, didn't know they started doing that. I'll keep that in mind if Mozilla completely shits up the mobile browser, though I currently have no reason to switch since I haven't had any issues with mobile Firefox since I replaced the 2011-era tablet. Kind of doubt it would matter though, since that tile bug was happening even as far back as 2012ish.
Thanks for the heads up. Now they just need to start officially supporting Linux so that maybe it can start getting into distro repos before the Firefox ESR releases go off the plot like the mainline versions are starting to.