Spring 2020 - Pioneer Magazine - Sons of Utah Pioneers

26.2 MB·English

by  Sons of Utah Pioneers

2020 ■ volume 67 ■ number 1
pppiiiooonnneeeeeerrr
150
The th
Anniversary of Utah
Woman Suffrage
P u b l i s h e d b y t h e S o n s o f U t a h P i o n e e r s
2020 VOLUME 67 NO 1
■ ■
THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE
pioneer SONS OF UTAH PIONEERS
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
PRESIDENT: Wayne K. Hinton
PRESIDENT-ELECT: Bradley Clayton
PAST PRESIDENT: Anthony C. Tidwell
PUBLISHER: Dr. William W. Tanner
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF & MAGAZINE DESIGNER:
Susan Lofgren
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD:
Dr. Thomas G. Alexander
Troy R. Braegger
Robert C. Folkman
Dr. A. Keith Lawrence
Kent V. Lott, Publisher Emeritus
FINANCIAL: John E. Elggren
SUBSCRIPTIONS: Pat Cook
Email: [email protected]
or go to the website. Annual subscription
cost is $25 per year or $45 for two years.
SUP WEBSITE: www.sup1847.com
features
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS:
2 The Beginning of Better Days: 52 “The Voice of Freedom from
3301 East Louise Avenue, SLC, Utah 84109
Utah’s Pioneering Role in the that Far-off Western Shore”:
(801) 484–4441
Woman Suff rage Movement, Utah Women and the National
Email: [email protected]
by Tiff any Taylor Bowles Suff rage Movement by Rebekah
SUP LIBRARY &
Ryan Clark, Tiff any Greene,
16 Emmeline B. Wells and the AFFILIATE FAMILYSEARCH CENTER:
Katherine Kitterman
Battle for the Ballot, by Carol LIBRARY DIRECTOR: John Smith
Cornwall Madsen 62 International Woman Suff rage,
OFFICE & LIBRARY HOURS:
by Wayne Hinton
22 Woman Suff rage: As seen 10 am – 5 pm, Mon. – Thurs.
through the pages of the 66 Timeline of the National
MISSION STATEMENT: The Mission of
Woman’s Exponent, Suff rage Movement the National Society of the Sons of Utah
by Jennifer E. Barkdull Pioneers is to come to know our fathers
and turn our hearts to them; we preserve
27 Letter by Susan B. Anthony in departments
the memory and heritage of the early
the 1894 Woman’s Exponent
pioneers of the Utah Territory and the
1 President’s Message:
28 “All that Tends to Elevate”: western U.S.; we honor present-day
by Wayne Hinton
pioneers worldwide who exemplify the
Latter-day Saints in the Na-
36 Pioneer Vignettes: pioneer qualities of character; and we
tional Council of Women, by
teach these same qualities to the youth
Alice Louise Reynolds: A Woman’s
Rebekah Ryan Clark
who will be tomorrow’s pioneers.
Woman, by Mary Jane Woodger;
40 Leaders of the Utah Woman
Emily S. Tanner Richards, from THE PIONEER VALUES: We honor the
Suff rage Movement
family records pioneers for their faith in God, devotion to
family, loyalty to church and country, hard
44 An Independent Woman:
COVER: Seraph Young Votes, by David
work and service to others, courage in
Martha Hughes Cannon,
Koch;image courtesy of the Capitol
adversity, personal integrity, and unyield-
by Susan Easton Black
Preservation Board, Utah State ing determination.
Capitol Collection
© 2020 National Society of the Sons
of Utah Pioneers®
iv
President’s Message I by Wayne Hinton
In February other states. In 2020 we are observing the relationships with national women’s rights
1870 Utah 150th anniversary of women fi rst voting in leaders Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady
women were Utah, and the 100th anniversary of women Stanton, May Wright Sewall and others.
given the right nationwide being granted voting rights. Through these relationships, Utah women
to vote in ter- The authors discuss Utah women’s pio- were able to overcome Utah’s geographi-
ritorial and local neering role as advocates for woman suf- cal isolation and counteract negative ste-
elections. Seven- frage. The female Relief Society assumed reotypes about Latter-day Saints. Utahns
teen years later, a leading role both in Utah and in the became involved in the original organiza-
with the federal Edmunds-Tucker Act, national women’s rights movement. Relief tion of two of the leading women’s inter-
Congress took away that right because Society leaders such as Emmeline B. Wells national and national organizations, the
Utah women voters did not repudiate and Zina Young Williams took prominent International Council of Women (ICW) and
the practice of plural marriage. With the roles in lobbying for women in Utah and the National Council of Women (NCW).
adoption of the state constitution in 1895 at the national level, developing close ties Local suff rage leaders in Utah were
that gave equal voting rights to women with national suff rage leaders. sometimes called and set apart for their
and men, and with the admission of The contributors to this issue roles in national organizations, and
Utah as the forty-fi fth state in January include a good mix of veteran authors were often offi cers in the Relief Society,
1896, women’s voting rights in Utah and younger writers who have become Primary, and Young Women’s organiza-
were permanently secured. This victory knowledgeable about the struggle for tions. They built support for woman
at statehood came after eighteen years women’s voting rights at home and else- suff rage by conducting fundraisers,
of struggle for the ballot and twenty-four where in the nation. We are grateful to all mass meetings, and parades. They wrote
years before the Nineteenth Amend- of them for their outstanding articles. newsletters and embraced the politi-
ment would be passed by Congress to More than one article mentions Em- cal processes that led to the eventual
enfranchise women nationwide. Utah’s meline B. Wells. After becoming editor of accomplishment of their goal of equal
legislature promptly ratifi ed the amend- the WWWooommmeeennn’’’sss EEExxxpppooonnneeennnttt iinn 11887777,, SSiisstteerr WWeellllss suff rage in Utah twenty-four years before
ment, making Utah the seventeenth of turned the publication into a powerful the entire nation followed suit. There is
the required thirty-six states to do so. voice on many subjects for the women
no question that the woman suff rage
This issue of PPPiiiooonnneeeeeerrr eexxaammiinneess tthhee of Utah. Another contributor details
movement fl ourished in Utah. Utah
history of the woman suff rage movement Martha Hughes Cannon’s advocacy, both
women were determined and able to
in Utah, and Utah women’s participation by example as an early physician in Utah
speak out eff ectively for women’s rights.
in eff orts to secure the vote for women in and as a spokesperson for the suff rage
This issue of PPPiiiooonnneeeeeerrr iiss ddeevvootteedd ttoo
movement. Martha became the
the history of woman suff rage in Utah
fi rst woman state senator in United
as we join many others in the state in
States history and blazed an impor-
celebration of the 150th anniversary of
tant trail for independent women
Utah’s fi rst steps toward equal rights for
nationally.
women and the 100th anniversary of the
Other authors discuss how the
Nineteenth Amendment to the United
suff rage movement helped Utah
SSttaatteess CCoonnssttiittuuttiioonn.. BBootthh aarree ssiiggnniififi ccaanntt
wwoommeenn ddeevveelloopp mmeeaanniinnggffuull
mmiilleeppoosstt aannnniivveerrssaarriieess iinn oouurr hhiissttoorryy
aaannnddd dddeeessseeerrrvvveee ttthhheee hhhiiissstttooorrriiicccaaalll
eeexxxaaammmiiinnnaaatttiiiooonnn dddeeevvvooottteeeddd tttooo
them in this outstanding
iiissssssuuueee ooofff Pioneer.
Historical artifacts used throughout this issue WWWAAAYYYNNNEEE HHHIIINNNTTTOOONNN
are from theSisters for Suff rage: How SSSUUUPPP NNNAAATTTIIIOOONNNAAALLL
Utah Women Won the Voteexhibit at PPPRRREEESSSIIIDDDEEENNNTTT 222000222000
the Church History Museum. Celebrating 150
years since Utah women became the fi rst in the Ballot Box, circa 1860s, used
nation to vote under an equal suff rage law, this in territorial elections for the
exhibition highlights the pioneering role of the town of Lewiston, Utah
Relief Society in the local and national woman
suff rage movements.
Pioneer 1
The
B eginning
of
Bett er Days
22222 222000111999 ■■ VVOOLLUUMMEE 6666 ■■ NNOO 44
Utah’s Pioneering Role in the
Woman Suffrage Movement
BY TIFFANY TAYLOR BOWLES,Church History Museum
O
n March 17, 1842, the Female
Relief Society of Nauvoo was
organized, laying the founda-
tion for what would become
one of the oldest and largest women’s
societies in the world. With Emma
Smith as their president, the intrepid
women gathered money and sup-
plies to help build the Nauvoo
Temple and assist families in need.
Addressing the society, Joseph
Smith, president of Th e Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
declared, “I now turn the key to you
in the name of God and this Society
shall rejoice and knowledge and
intelligence shall fl ow down from
this time—this is the beginning of
better days.”1
Latter-day Saints saw this as the beginning of better days—not just
for women in Nauvoo, Illinois, but for women throughout the country.
Only six years later, in July 1848, the fi rst woman’s rights convention
was held in Seneca Falls, New York, beginning a seventy-two-year cam-
paign for woman suff rage. Members of the Relief Society would play a
unique role in the suff rage movement, both locally and nationally.
Amidst the turmoil in Nauvoo, the Female Relief Society of Nau-
voo held its last meeting on March 16, 1844. In June the Prophet Joseph
Smith was killed, and by 1845 the society had been offi cially disbanded.
But women continued to help each other through the diffi cult years
COME LET US REJOICE, BY WALTER RANE
© BY INTELLECTUAL RESERVE, INC.
Pioneer 3
4 2020 ■ VOLUME 67 ■ NO 1
ahead as the Latter-day Saints were forced to leave Il-
linois. Aft er fi nding sanctuary in the isolated desert val-
leys of present-day Utah, Latter-day Saint women again
began to organize.
O
n February 9, 1854, a group of seventeen women
gathered in Salt Lake City and organized them-
selves for the purpose of “making clothing for
Indian women and children.”2 By the summer of
that year, Brigham Young was encouraging women
to meet together in their own wards. Local women’s
groups were organized in most of the Salt Lake wards
and in several nearby communities, usually under the On February 9, 1854, a group of sev-
direction of the local bishop. Th e groups oft en had
enteen women gathered in Salt Lake
presidencies organized in the familiar pattern of the
Nauvoo Relief Society, and some of them adopted the City and organized themselves for
Relief Society name, but there was no central leader-
the purpose of “making clothing for
ship to establish universal guidelines and objectives.
Th e groups had varying meeting schedules and Indian women and children.”
agendas. Most at fi rst focused on providing clothing
for the Indians, then later they turned their attention
to the needs of families and individuals in their wards,
especially new immigrants. Despite the success of blossoming communities
During the “Move South” in 1857–58—in antici- in the Utah Territory, the practice of plural marriage
pation of the occupation of the Salt Lake Valley by US attracted attention from the national government, even
soldiers during the Utah War—some of these groups though many of the Latter-day Saints did not live the
of sisters provided important assistance to families principle.4 In 1856 national politicians labeled slavery
being uprooted from their homes. But the scatter- and polygamy as the “twin relics of barbarism,”5 and
ing of so many Saints to central Utah resulted in the in 1862 Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act,
disbanding of most of the ward societies, and aft er the which prohibited marriage to more than one
refugees returned to their homes in 1858, local leaders person.But with the nation embroiled in the
found it hard to restart the groups and restore the mo- Civil War, this legislation was not enforced.
mentum that had begun four years earlier. Almost ten In 1869, Representative George W. Julian
years passed before a churchwide Relief Society was of Indiana—believing that women would vote
fi nally organized in 1867. Eliza R. Snow, a key leader against the perceived oppression of plural
for the reestablishment of the Relief Society, declared, marriage—proposed a bill “to discourage
“United eff ort will accomplish incalculably more than polygamy in Utah by granting the right of
can be accomplished by the most eff ective individual suff rage to the women of that territory.” To the
energies.”3 surprise of many, Church leaders came out
Home industry was emphasized among the in support of equal suff rage, confi dent that
Latter-day Saints, and Relief Society sisters proved Utah women would not vote to end plural
themselves to be talented and capable contributors to marriage. Indeed, the women of Utah did
George W. Julian
the self-suffi cient Utah society. not denounce polygamy, but instead publicly
PPiioonneeeerr 5
spoke in support of plural marriage. Th ey waited patiently a long time, and now that
held a series of “indignation” meetings to we were granted the right of suff rage, she
demand their right to religious freedom would openly declare herself a woman’s
and to protest federal antipolygamy laws. rights woman.”7 In August, nearly two
Latter-day Saint women represented them- thousand Utah women exercised their
selves to the nation as decisive, strong, and right to vote in the territorial election.
free, committed to their religious beliefs. A “It is our duty to vote, sisters[;] let no
reporter from the New York Herald wrote trifl ing thing keep you at home,” instructed
of speeches he heard in Salt Lake City, Eliza R. Snow.8 Th e practical experience
concluding, “In logic, and in rhetoric, the that Relief Society women were gain-
so-called degraded ladies of Mormondom ing from their charitable enterprises and
are quite equal to the Women’s Rights tthheeiirr lleeaaddeerrsshhiipp rroolleess iinn tthhee CChhuurrcchh aanndd
women of the East.”6 ccoommmmuunniittyy hhaadd pprreeppaarreedd tthheemm ttoo bbee
rreessppoonnssiibbllee aanndd wweellll--iinnffoorrmmeedd vvootteerrss.. ThTh ee
I
nn rreessppoonnssee ttoo tthhee LLaatttteerr--ddaayy SSaaiinntt wwoomm-- DDeesseerreett NNeewwss rreeppoorrtteedd,, ““ThTh ee ggrreeaatt GGeennttiillee
eenn’’ss ddeeffeennssee ooff tthheeiirr rriigghhttss aass cciittiizzeennss,, tthhee aarrgguummeenntt ffoorr eessttaabblliisshhiinngg wwoommaann ssuuff--
UUttaahh tteerrrriittoorriiaall lleeggiissllaattuurree ppaasssseedd aann aacctt ffrraaggee iinn UUttaahh wwaass tthhaatt tthhee
ggiivviinngg tthhee vvoottee ttoo wwoommeenn oonn FFeebbrruuaarryy 1100,, MMoorrmmoonneesssseess,, wwhhoo wweerree
11887700.. TTwwoo ddaayyss llaatteerr,, tthhee aacctt wwaass ssiiggnneedd bbyy sseeccrreettllyy ddiissgguusstteedd wwiitthh
AAccttiinngg GGoovveerrnnoorr SS..  AA.. MMaannnn,, mmaakkiinngg UUttaahh tthhee ffaaiitthh,, wwoouulldd fifi nndd iinn
tthhee sseeccoonndd tteerrrriittoorryy ttoo eennffrraanncchhiissee wwoommeenn.. tthhee bbaalllloott aa ppaannaacceeaa ffoorr
AAlltthhoouugghh WWyyoommiinngg TTeerrrriittoorryy hhaadd ppaasssseedd tthheeiirr lloott aanndd aa wwaayy ooff
tthheeiirr ssuuffff rraaggee lleeggiissllaattiioonn ttwwoo mmoonntthhss bbeeffoorree eessccaappee oouutt ooff iitt bbyy
UUttaahh,, tthhee nneexxtt WWyyoommiinngg eelleeccttiioonnss wwoouulldd oovveerrtthhrroowwiinngg
nnoott bbee hheelldd uunnttiill SSeepptteemmbbeerr.. UUttaahh’’ss mmuunniiccii-- ttthhheeeiiirrr rrruuullleeerrrsss... ... ... ...
pal election was just two days away. ThThTh uuusss fffaaarrr sssuuuccchhh
OOnn FFeebbrruuaarryy 1144,, 11887700,, sseevveerraall wwoommeenn MMoorrmmoonn
vvootteedd iinn tthhee SSaalltt LLaakkee CCiittyy mmuunniicciippaall eelleecc-- wwoommeenn aass
tion, becomingtthhee fifi rrsstt wwoommeenn ttoo lleeggaallllyy
cast a voteiinn aa UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess eelleeccttiioonn uunnddeerr
an equal suff rage law.SSaarraahh MM.. KKiimmbbaallll,,
aatt wwhhoossee hhoommee tthhee RReelliieeff SSoocciieettyy hhaadd iittss
beginnings, told her Salt Lake Fift eenth
WWaarrdd RReelliieeff SSoocciieettyy ssiisstteerrss ““tthhaatt sshhee hhaadd
““IItt iiss oouurr dduuttyy ttoo vvoottee,, ssiisstteerrss[[;;]] lleett nnoo
trifling thing keep you at home,”
—Eliza R. Snow
6 2020 ■ VOLUME 67 ■ NO 1
have voted at all . . . seem to have invariably
supported the straight ‘Mormon’ ticket.”9 When
it became apparent that Utah women were not
going to eradicate polygamy with their votes,
national lawmakers and Utah’s non-Latter-day
Saint population realized that granting suff rage
to Utah women had only strengthened the posi-
tion of the Church. Politicians began draft ing
legislation to disenfranchise the new voters.
One newspaper concluded that “the surest way
to reform Mormonism is to repeal the law al-
lowing woman suff rage in this Territory.”10
In 1871, national suff ragists Susan B. An-
thony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton visited Utah.
Th ough pleased that the women of the terri-
tory could vote, Stanton and Anthony viewed
plural marriage as incongruous with women’s
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth
freedom. Th e pair spoke to a group of Latter-day
Cady Stanton
Saint women for fi ve hours at the old tabernacle.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton lectured about mar-
riage, claiming that women married too young wrote that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan
and had “too many children,” suggesting that those in B. Anthony made them feel “perfectly at home”
attendance focus more on “quality rather than quantity” in the nation’s capital. She described meeting
of off spring.11 Both women criticized the patriarchal women from across the country, “almost entirely
organization of the Church and doubted they would without prejudice towards our people.” Aft er the
ever again be welcome to speak in Salt Lake City. convention, however, the National Woman Suff rage
Less than one month later, perhaps in response Association was criticized for having “any appearance
to the suff ragists’ seemingly extreme rhetoric, Eliza of affi liation” with polygamous women.13
R. Snow spoke on the matter. “How very diff erent our In February 1882, Latter-day Saints Romania B.
position from that of our sisters in the world at large,” Pratt, Zina Young, and Ellen Ferguson14 attended a New
she said, “who are . . . vainly fl attering themselves with York woman suff rage convention. Th ey went to one of
the idea that with ingress to the ballot box . . . they shall the sessions early to speak with Susan B. Anthony. She
accomplish the elevation of woman-kind. . . . We have expressed great interest in the suff rage situation in Utah
already attained to an elevation in nobility and purity but perplexed the women when she asked for a source
of life which they can neither reach nor comprehend, “to whom she could apply for the Anti-Mormon” per-
and yet they call us ‘degraded.’”12 ception of aff airs in Utah. Romania Pratt snapped back:
Th ough the relationship between Latter-day Saint “Were you always so eager to hear our side on all mat-
women and national suff ragists was off to a rocky ters of dispute concerning us as you are the anti-side,
start, Emmeline Wells and Zina Young Williams were we would suff er a great deal less from misrepresentation
warmly received by national suff ragists in 1879 at a than we now do.” According to Romania, “Th e direct,
suff rage convention in Washington, DC. Emmeline telling truth and the appropriateness of the remark were
SUSAN B. ANTHONY PAINTING BY CARL GUTHERZ,
NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION;
LEFT: PHOTO COURTESY UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY PPiioonneeeerr 7
appreciated by [Miss Anthony],
. . . but [she] . . . made some
remark concerning how carefully
they had to guard the [suff rage]
cause by shunning even the ap-
pearance of evil; which seemed
to be the interpretation of al-
lowing Mormon women to be
represented on the platform.”15
National legislation enacted
in March 1882 put a temporary
end to Utah’s universal woman
suff rage. Th e Edmunds Act
made polygamy a misdemeanor
and disqualifi ed polygamous
men and women from voting.
Now national suff ragists were
faced with a quandary—should
they stand by Utah’s polygamous
women and decry the legislation
as an infringement on women’s
rights, or should they support vention in Washington, DC, a resolution
the legislation out of concern that condon- was adopted, stating: “Th at this Association
ing polygamy would be seen as an indefen- most earnestly protests . . . the Edmunds
sible stain on the suff rage cause? bill, which proposes to disfranchise all the
Congress complicated matters by next women of Utah, thus infl icting the most
considering the disenfranchisement of all degrading penalty upon the innocent
Utah women, regardless of whether they equally with the guilty, by robbing them of
practiced plural marriage. While tak- their most sacred right of citizenship.”15
ing voting rights away from polygamous To the surprise of many at that 1884
women had seemed tolerable to national convention, an unsolicited advocate spoke
suff ragists, the idea of blanket disenfran- in defense of the Latter-day Saints. Mrs.
chisement was not. At the 1884 National Belva Ann Lockwood, one of the fi rst fe-
Woman Suff rage Association (NWSA) con- male lawyers in the United States, declared
that disenfranchisement of Utah women
was unconstitutional and merely intended
to “oppress a gentle, harmless people.” Mrs.
Lockwood pointed out that the Oneida