A Public “Jollification” : The 1859 Women’s
Rights Petition before the Indiana Legislature
Pat Creech Scholten*
Ridicule has long been a weapon used by men against
the women’s movement for equality. Beginning with the first
mention of the rights of women in the legislative proceedings of the state of Indiana in 1844,’ the men of Indiana have
contributed their share in the reductio ad absurdum that
followed these disturbing new demands for rights and privileges on the part of women. During the 1850s women in
Indiana, like women of other states, began their first demands for property rights and suffrage. At that time such
ideas appeared so ludicrous to many men that, when confronted with such demands, they gave full rein to their frolicksome natures. The men of Indiana, with decades of rough
frontier living and boisterous backwoods humor to guide them,
proved no exception.2
The events surrounding the presentation of the women’s
rights petition to a joint convention of the Indiana General
Assembly on January 19, 1859, clearly revealed the prevailing attitudes toward women’s rights in Indiana. The
incidents arising from this event caused such a public uproar
that newspapers carried “long, heavy articles for several
days, to the exclusion of news,” according to a cantankerous
editor of the Indianapolis Indiana Weekly State J0urna1.~A
Cincinnati Gazette reporter described what happened that
day as “a farce” and “the most disgraceful affair he ever saw
in which ladies were concerned.”4 The Indianapolis Indiana
* Pat Creech Scholten is a doctoral candidate in t h e department of
speech communication, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Indiana, House Journal (1843), 394-95.
2Logan Esarey, History of Indiana F r o m I t s Explorations to 1922
(reprint edition, Indianapolis, 1970) , 574-609.
3 Indianapolis Indiana W e e k l y S t a t e Journal, J a n u a r y 27, 1859.
4 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, J a n u a r y 20, 1859.
348
Indiana Magazine of History
Daily State Sentinel editorialized: “We trust, for the sake
of woman, ‘the last best gift of God to man,’ that the Legislature of Indiana, will never again give its sanction to such a
proceeding.”’
What had caused such a public consternation? F o r the
first time in Indiana women had publicly presented a petition
calling for women’s rights-a
petition signed by over one
thousand residents of Wayne County, including signatures
of both women and legal (i.e. male) voters.“ And if this were
not enough, three women had addressed this joint session of
the Indiana legislature, the first time that a person of the
female sex had spoken before the state legislature. Even more
disgraceful were the events following these addresses. According to the Indianapolis and Cincinnati newspapers, once
the house adjourned, the gathering turned into “a noisy and
foolish meeting” and “an extemporized affair”’ that included
“desultory debates” and “free exchange of opinion and sentiment”X between men, women, women’s rights advocates,
temperance advocates, the clerk of the house, senators and
their constituents, and “an old, half-crazed individual by the
name of Alred.”” In the confusion and uproar many tried to
leave, but they could not force their way through the crowd,
described a s a “field of crinoline” and a “surging mass of
pantaloons.”“’ According to the Indiana Daily State Sentinel,
the scenes that took place would be “the subject of burlesque
and ridicule for months, and maybe for years . . . ., 7 1 1
Such a t u r n of events should not have been surprising. In
1844 the assembly received the first women’s rights petition
asking i t to grant the right for married women to own property.’” According to one Indiana historian, however, this
merely provoked “some coarse humor, inspired evidently in a
barroom,” from members of the judiciary committee to which
it was referred.” The committee suggested t h a t “the dear
,’Indianapolis I n d i a n a
D a i l y State S e n t i n e l , J a n u a r y 20, 1859.
The f i r s t petition, described a s a “slip,” was submitted anonymously by “J.L. .......................
F o r the text see Indiana, H o m e J o u r n a l
(1843), 394-95.
i Indianapolis I n d i a n a W e e k l y State J o u r n a l , J a n u a r y 27, 1859.
Indianapolis I n d i a n a D a i l y S t a t e S e n t i n e l , J a n u a r y 20, 1859.
!’ Cincinnati Daily G a z e t t e , J a n u a r y 20, 1859.
l o Indianapolis I n d i a n a D a i l y State S e n t i n e l , J a n u a r y 20, 1859.
1 1 Ibid.
l Z Indiana, House J o ~ r n a Z (1843)., 452.
Esarey, History of I n d i a n a , 631.
Women’s Rights
349
creatures” exercise “a small portion of that acuteness for
which the eastern portion of the union [the husband] is so
justly celebrated” and “provide for the disunion of their real
and paraphernal property” before marriage; but, the committee also hinted darkly that (‘such preliminaries’’ might
undermine “unanimity in the union.” They advised instead
that “the good old mode of a loving and abiding confidence”
in their husbands would “make the union a unit.” In reporting t o the speaker the committee concluded that “though
strongly inclined to think that women are angels, yet they
cannot forget that angels may be devils: they therefore deem
it inexpedient to legislate in the premises, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration thereof.”“ This report
was not concurred in and was referred to a select committee
which seems never to have reported. Even so, in 1846 women
were given the right to make wills,15and women’s property
a t time of marriage was exempt from use to pay a husband’s
debts.lb Other than these concessions, little had changed by
1859 either in law or attitude.
Logan Esarey described the men of Indiana during the
1850s as “rough, outspoken and boisterous.” And the subject
of women’s rights seemed particularly to have brought out the
worst in them. Esarey remarked that “even so gentle a man
as Berry Sulgrove” (editor of the Indiana Weekly State
Journal) spoke of the meeting of the Women’s Rights Convention in 1854 which he attended “with a coarseness not
common to him.”Ii Esarey wrote further that “The women
seemed like peasants of the sixteenth century pleading for
liberty and the attitude of the press and the members of the
General Assembly was not such as one can speak with pride.””
This certainly described the “jollification”’” surrounding the
presentation of the women’s rights petition in 1859.
Historical accounts of this event fail to mention the disturbing incidents connected with this presentation. Generally
such reports relate that Mary F. Thomas presented the petiIndiana, House Journal (1843), 452.
Indiana, L a w s (1846), chapter 6.
Indiana, Senate Journal (1846), 141.
l 7 Esarey, History of Indiana, 600, 632.
Ix
Zbid., 632.
I!’ Indianapolis Zndiana Daily State Sentinel, J a n u a r y 20, 1859. I n
its report, t h e newspaper quoted a “member from a northern county”
who labeled t h e proceedings “a jollification.”
l4
350
Indiana Magazine of History
MARYF. THOMAS
Courtesy author
tion and gave an address, thus becoming the first woman
speaker before the Indiana legislature.20 One account notes
that the joint session listened “politely.”21 None describe the
scenes recorded by contemporary newspapers of what took
place when the house adjourned on Wednesday, January 19,
1859.22
The Indiana House Journal recorded that on that date
the General Assembly in a joint convention gathered to hear
Thomas read and present a petition “asking the Legislature
to grant to women the same rights in property as men, and
also the right of suffrage.’’ The house then resolved itself
into a committee of the whole to consider the petition of the
women and recommended that it be the special order of
20 See f o r example Lillian O’Connor, Pioneer Women Orators: Rhetoric in the Ante-Bellum Reform Movement (New York, 1954), 94; Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Matilda Joslyn Gage, eds.,
The History of Woman Suffrage (Rochester, 1889), 309.
z1 E m m a Lou Thornbrough, Zndiana in the Civil W a r E r a : 18501880 (Indianapolis, 1965), 36.
22 See t h e Indianapolis Indiana Daily State Sentinel, t h e Indianapolis
Indiana Weekly State Journal, a n d the Cincinnati Gazette.
Women’s Rights
351
the day for the following Friday.’“ This straightfoward account gave no hint t h a t this was not an ordinary day in the
usual business of the legislature.
An unashamedly biased account by the Indiana Daily
State Sentinel of what actually happened captured the excitement in the air: “early after dinner yesterday, crowds
of curious spectators, among whom were mingled a f e w
who felt an interest in the movement, were seen moving
toward the State House.” Hours before the session began
the hall was filled. The newspaper conjured a picture of the
members of the house, who in gentlemenly fashion had relinquished their seats to the ladies. Much ‘Lmasculinehumanity,”
however, was crowded out by the expansive skirts of the day
and forced to stand in aisles, lobbies, and galleries “merely
looking on, wondering, and it may be, wishing.” According
to the reporter, “Every man that had a stand point determined to keep it, and there was a perfect unity of ideas
between the sexes, for the women tenaciously held to their
places.” Only by great physical effort did the president of
the house succeed in reaching the speaker’s stand and calling
the convention to order.Y4
The verbatim report of the legislative proceedings printed
in the State Sentinel documented the levity which set the
tone for the day. After the house was called to order, there
was a n unaccountable delay before the women petitioners
entered. The exchanges between the legislators revealed tension and uneasiness in the chambers. John s. Davis declared t h a t “This is a grave and important matter.” Since
a lack of space and chairs prevented a number of senators
from seeing o r hearing, Davis made a special plea for a seat
for the senator from Vigo County “as the only bachelor in
that body,” which provoked laughter and cheers. Someone
Fuggested t h a t while they waited for the women, the best
looking bachelor address the assembly. There were cries for
“Nebeker, of Warren” who denied bachelorhood, but recommended instead “Edwards, from Vigo.” Edwards then offered
to waive his “pretensions for the gentleman from Warrento give him an opportunity to exhibit his personal beauty.”
The laughter subsided only “under the hammer of the Chair.”
23
24
Indiana, House Journal (1859), 157.
Indianapolis Indiana Daily State Sentinel, J a n u a r y 20, 1859.
Indiana Magazine of History
352
The women speakers then “came forward and took seats at
the Speaker’s table.”2’
Thomas was conscious of the jocular atmosphere of the
gathering, and before reading her petition and her address,
she made an emotional appeal for a hearing: “Permit me,
friends, to say a word before reading our petition. Brothers
and sisters, we have not come here to exhibit ourselves as a
show to our brothers of the General Assembly. We have
come here feeling deeply the need of that which we petition
of you; and I beg of you to receive us as becomes our cause
and your position in this place.” She then read the petition
and an address in writing, described variously as “a very
good speech, delivered, however, in a low tone of voice”2b
and as “an interesting and able addres~.”~7
Later historians
described it as “an admirable statement of the plea for suffrage” and “a thoughtful, apparently well-prepared address.”2R
Like other feminist appeals of that era, Thomas’ speech
was built on logical argument, with a separate section devoted to emotional
She argued from the underlying
premise that what is right for the goose is right for the
gander: “If the exercise of this right [of citizenship] is
necessary to the perfect development of man’s mind and whole
being; if he feels dwarfed, intellectually, by being deprived
of that right, will not the same argument apply to woman
Thomas then used a second argument not heard in the country
for many years but used very effectively by early feminists:
“Taxation without Representation.”” Since a woman “is held
2‘1
Ihid.
26
Ibid,
2 7 Senator George K. Steele made this judgment in a resolution
following t h e women’s speeches. See Indiana, Senate Journal (1859),
185.
Z x Esarey, History of Indiana, 632n; O’Connor, Pioneer Wonten Orators, 94.
2‘”See O’Connor, Pioneer W o m e n Orators, 161. A full t e x t of
Thomas’ speech is printed in the Indiana, Senate Joz~rnal (1859), 186-90,
in the Indianapolis Indiana W e e k l y S t a t e Journal, J a n u a r y 27, 1859,
a n d in the Indianapolis Indiana Daily S f a t e Sentinel, J a n u a r y 21, 1859.
The J o w n a l a n d S t a t e Sentinel both r a n the following note from Thomas
along with her speech: “I deem i t due t o myself a n d the cause, to say,
t h a t in preparing this address f o r the press, i t must necessarily be very
imperfect from the hasty manner in which i t was written in the f i r s t
place, a n d much of i t not written a t all.”
3n Indiana, Senate Journal (1859), 187.
R 1 O’Connor, Pioneer W o m e n Orators, 184 ; Indiana, Senate Journal
(1859), 189.
Women’s R i g h t s
353
amenable to the laws of h e r country,” she had the same natural, inalienable right as men to express herself on questions
“of vital interest to her.”3*
Thomas argued that the times and public opinion had
changed. The very fact that she spoke before the legislature,
she declared, was proof enough. A few years ago, she continued, the legislature of Indiana would not have granted “the
respectful attention it now does, in this Hall, dedicated as it
is to learning, talent and wisdom . . . .” Then, in a statement
that would later prove ironical, Thomas said: “Men are not
now shocked at a woman speaking in public,” and are “constrained to admit” that many women can achieve “deeds of
noble daring.”.j3 To prove her point Thomas then listed the
achievements of fourteen famous women, ranging from Maria
Michell’s discovery of stars to Harriet Hosmer’s sculpture,
to Emma Willard’s writing of schoolbooks, to the preaching
of Lucretia Mott and Antoinette L. Blackwell.s4 In order to
show that these women were not exceptional, Thomas then
mentioned the achievements of professional women, including
“last, though not least, your humble petitioner with hundreds
of other lady physicians.” She praised the achievements of
all women during the monetary crisis of the previous year,
which in one respect had “been a blessing to women, by calling to the sphere of usefulness many who shrank, in former
times, from assuming any responsibility.” Times had indeed
changed, Thomas maintained, for “they who once denounced
us as fanatics, have, through absolute necessity and trial,
learned to feel and to acknowledge that woman has not all
the rights she needs.”35
Thomas concluded her arguments with two assertions
familiar to the women’s liberation movement. She first declared that men would benefit equally with women. “The
true interests of the sexes are so intimately interwoven with
each other that one cannot suffer without the other suffering
also.” Secondly, Thomas insisted that a woman’s development
as a human being would enhance rather than diminish her
maternal qualities. . . . “there need be no fear of woman neglecting her maternal duties,” Thomas maintained, for “the
Indiana, Senate Journal (1859), 187.
Ibid., 188.
34 Ihid., 188-89.
3,: Ihid., 189.
32
33
Indiana Magazine of History
354
more women become acquainted with human life and prepare
to discharge its responsibilities, the more interest they will
feel in carrying out all the relations of life.”36
Bringing her speech to a close, Thomas quoted Samuel
Adams’ statement that taxation without representation reduced free subjects to the state of “tributary slaves.” She
rested her argument confidently on “the verdict of all candid
minds; for, having taken our stand upon the broad basis of
woman’s undeniable humanity, and claimed from thence its
rights as a matter of strict justice, we have virtually forestalled all answer and all objections.”
Finally Thomas pleaded:
however some of this l a r g e a n d attentive audience m a y consider me out
of woman’s sphere in t h u s addressing you, I feel i t r i g h t to say t h a t not
one who h a s heard these thoughts expressed, b u t feel a living response
i n t h e inmost recesses of their souls, a n d we a s k kindly t o consider your
d u t y i n reference t o the matter, a n d a c t accordingly.37
According to the State Sentinel, when Thomas’ address
was concluded the presiding officer introduced the second
woman at the speaker’s table, Mary B. Birdsall. The Sentinel
described her address as “a very clear and logical plea in behalf
of the right of suffrage in woman”; but no copy of the speech
exists, despite the legislative resolution that the addresses of
both women be printed in the city n e w ~ p a p e r .The
~ ~ State
Journal declared that “we cannot make room for more than
one” and published only Thomas’ addresss9 After the conclusion of Birdsall’s speech, Agnes Cook, the third woman to
speak before the joint convention, presented an extemporaneous address on temperance, arguing that “the enfranchised
woman” would be more effective in the cause of temperance.
According to the Sentinel, Cook made an “allusion to the unchivalric remark of one of the orators of the State Temperance Convention yesterday, to this effect: ‘We will hold the
ladies’ bonnets whilst they shall fight the doggeries.’ ” Since
Cook’s speech closed the proceedings it could very well have
set the tone for what happened shortly afterward^.^^
Ibid., 189-90.
Ihid., 190.
38 Indianapolis I n d i a n a D a i l y S t a t e S e n t i n e l , J a n u a r y 20, 1859.
3!1 Indianapolis I n d i a n a W e e k l y S t a t e J o u r n a l , J a n u a r y 27, 1859.
4 0 Indianapolis I n d i a n a D a i l y S t a t e S e n t i n e l , J a n u a r y 20, 1859.
36
37
Women’s Rights
355
After Cook’s address, the presiding officer declared adjournment and the senators returned to their chambers. The
State Sentinel gave this colorful account of what followed:
T h e Senate having retired from t h e Hall, and Mr. Speaker Gordon having resumed the chair, the House should have been t h e House again. The
ladies, however, having possession of t h e floor, knew their rights, and
dared a n d did maintain them. F r o m t h e seats where grave heads have
f o r years bent in thought, bright eyes sent f o r t h bewildering darts, glowing cheeks blushed i n loveliness, and red, rich lips smiled bewitchingly.
In such a sea of all t h a t is lovely and enchanting, business was not to
be thought of-that
rigid systematic business t h a t legislation demands
-and, accordingly, a f t e r several ineffectual efforts to do something, a
member gallantly moved t h a t t h e House adjourn, and t h a t t h e meeting
resolve itself into a love-feast. The motion w a s carried by acclamationt h e Speaker’s hammer fell, and the feast of reason and the flow of soul
began.41
In recounting the progression of events, the newspaper
continued: “How shall we describe it? We abandon the effort
in despair, and content ourselves with giving a few brief incidents, which may be taken as a sample of the entire affair.”
The first incident involved a senator and his constituent. The
senator, according to the newspaper, termed the proceedings
a “jollification” which caused one of his female constituents
to make “severe threats of dire vengeance.” The newspaper
reported that “The Hon. gentleman rose and took it all back.
He would call it any name the lady desired-it was not material
Next, the clerk of the house, R.J. Ryan, made a speech
“giving the ladies some wholesome advice in his own way.”
He declared that “Already everything was conceded to the
ladies. He had to buy a new suit of clothes because he had
lately t o step so often in the gutters, to let the ladies have
the clean dry side-walk.” This began what the newspaper
described as “desultory debate” and “out-pouring of patriotism.” “An old gentleman, Mr. Alred,” aroused by this statement, proclaimed that he was happy that “Dick had spent
some money with the tailors, for i t kept just that amount out
of t h e tills of the grog-shops!” Alred then proceeded to describe the evils of intemperance: “the black eyes, swolen
[sic] lips and numerous noses he had seen knocked up.” And
41
42
Ibid.
Ibid.
Indiana Magazine of History
he declared that “He had never, however, seen but three
women in that fix. A lady present coincided exactly with Mr.
Alred” and the “free exchange of opinion and sentiment
After declaring that “We have no idea that one out of
every ten of the ladies present had any sympathy with the
movement,” the State Sentinel created the impression that
the ladies drawn to the meeting “merely from [innocent]
curiosity” were helplessly trapped by the crowds against their
will and assured its readers that they “heartily wished themselves out of the scrape . . . .?’ The newspaper concluded that
the idea of the joint session was a foolish one, that the presentation of the petition did not advance the cause, and that
the legislature of Indiana, “for the sake of woman,’’ should
never again “give its sanction to such a p r o ~ e e d i n g . ” ~ ~
The Indiana W e e k l y State Journal commented on the
events surrounding the presentation of the petition in a different, more tolerant manner. In an editorial the Journal
attacked a correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette for labeling the joint convention “a farce” and describing the meeting
that followed it as “the most disgraceful affair he ever saw
in which ladies were concerned.” The editors disavowed
any sympathy with the women’s rights movement: “We
think if the women were granted all they ask, they would
soon wish, like the bricklayer who broke his leg in falling
from a scaffold and begged Jupiter to suspend the laws of
gravitation in his case, that they were restored to their former
condition.” But even though nine out of ten women were
“indifferent or adverse to the rights their lamenting sisters”
desired, the editors continued, “at the same time we don’t
see that anything is gained for truth by ridiculing the efforts
of those who desire such rights.” The editors placed the
blame on the legislature and not the women. “ T h e y did not
ask that the Hall should be turned into a
The Journal’s true sympathies, however, clearly showed
up in its comments prefacing Thomas’ speech. The editors
were reluctant and surly about printing Thomas’ address
and did not reproduce Birdsall’s speech a t all. As a matter
of fact, they claimed to be generous for agreeing to print
Ibid.
Ibid.
4 5 Indianapolis Indiana Peekly State Journal, J a n u a r y 27, 1859.
43
41
Women’s Rights
357
one address. “Indeed, if it were not that t[h]e novelty of
the movement, and the popular curiosity excited by it, as well
as its intrinsic interest, made a publication necessary, we
should feel indi[s]posed to surrender so much space to it,
after having had our columns crowded with long, heavy
articles for several days, to the exclusion of news.”“’
Alongside Thomas’ speech the Journal also published
a letter addressed “To the Ladies of Indiana” and signed
“John Young.” Expressing popular opinion of the day and
devastating in his ridicule,47 Young confessed that he was
attracted by curiosity to the legislative hall where “one of
your number” read an address. He heard the address called
beautiful by a member of the house but had not been able to
hear a single sentence himself.
The low tone of voice . . . demonstrated very satisfactorily t h a t woman
i s not in h e r t r u e sphere when she attempts t o address a large assembly.
Here was a g r a n d occasion f o r you t o show t h a t in power of voice, self
command, a n d declamatory power, you a r e equal to man. You chose the
readers a n d the speakers, a n d are fairly responsible f o r the effort-yet
t h e address was not heard by one third of t h e people who filled t h e
~
1
.
4
~
Further, Young declared, the women were presumptuous
in claiming to speak for the women of Indiana. “Why, dear
ladies,” he wrote, “half the people of Indiana are of your
sex.” Surely, if women wanted more rights, they could ask
for them in the bed chamber or a t breakfast. But “we rarely
hear a word of it.” Young recalled how pained he was to
hear that the ladies threatened to take law in their own hands
-laws that protect their marriage vows, chastity, peace, and
prosperity. “These very extravagancies, ladies, show that impulse and feeling prevail too much in your nature to fit you
for the cool calculations of statesmanship.” Women had already been granted property rights; women did not need the
ballot, for when they voted in church meetings, they usually
“vote with, not against their husbands.” Young added the
Ibid.
One guess is t h a t he was the same John Young who was nominated
f o r superintendent of public instruction in 1858 and who is mentioned
(once as writer of a letter t o a newspaper) in Mildred C. Stoler, “The
Democratic Element in the New Republican P a r t y in Indiana,” Indinvin
Magazine of Histov-y, XXXVI (September, 1940), 191, 194, 195, 196, 199,
207.
4 X Indianapolis Indiana Weekly State Journal, J a n u a r y 27, 1859.
48
47
Indiana Magazine of History
358
often used male criticism of feminists: “I know what is the
matter with you women’s rights ladies!” he declared. “You
don’t rule your husbands by love as the rest of the women of
Indiana do . . . .7,4!)
Young advised the women to go home and take care
of their husbands and children and “see if your homes will
not be a paradise, and your rights all safe in the true love
of your good man.” Besides, women would soon be cured
of politics; rather than elevating politics, as they claimed,
women would “soon be corrupted, your beauty will fade,
your virtue would become weak and vacillating.” Instead,
Young recommended that “You can now be the mothers
of a noble race of American citizens . . . .” He predicted that
if they chose the path they now sought they would leave behind a weak race “carried away with the love of novelty and
change,” and somewhat in the spirit of the French Revolution
all would “soon perish in fraternal blood.” He concluded that
“angels might envy you in your glorious work,” for “The
mission of woman is indeed a glorious one. To sweeten man’s
rugged life, to soften all his sorrows, to share and rejoice with
him in his joys, to train the rising race, to stamp the loved
image of the father’s character upon the rising boy, to raise
up the future mother, and fill their hearts with love and goodness and wisdom.” In closing Young declared that “I love you
all very much, but I love my country more.” He had a
particular love for one woman, he assured the ladies, but “I
want that one to forget her own rights in thinking of mine,
then I think I will not fail to protect and cherish her.’’5n
So ended the public discussion of the events iurrounding the presentation of the women’s rights petition to the
joint session of the Indiana state legislature. Thomas, undaunted by this ridicule and buffoonery, continued a full and
rich life, working with the suffrage, temperance, and abolitionist movements.51 Not until 1871, twelve years later, did
Indiana women again address the state legislature on women’s
Ibi.d.
Ibid.
5 1 For biographical accounts of Thomas’ accomplishments as a physician a n d leader of r e f o r m movements, see Stanton, Anthony, and Gage,
H i s t o r y of W o m a n S u f f r a g e , 314; D. W. H. Kemper, A Medical H i s t o r y
o f t h e S t a t e of I n d i a n a (Chicago, 1911), 348; a n d H i s t o r y of W a y n e
C o u n t y (Chicago, 1884), 606-608.
4o
50
Women’s Rights
359
rights.52 Two women who had been instrumental in presenting the petition in 1859, Amanda Way and Emma
Swank, addressed the joint convention “upon the question of
Female Suffrage.” A joint senate resolution was drawn up,
proposing an amendment to the state constitution that
would confer the right to vote to women over the age of
twenty-one. After due deliberation, the resolution was put
before the state senate where there was a last minute move
that the word “white” be inserted preceding the word
“female” wherever i t occurred in the resolution.“< This joint
resolution was not adopted. The women of Indiana, along
with women in other states, discovered over the next fifty
years that women could not hope to win the vote by the “states
route.” I t would take a federal amendment to the Constitution which could be impersonally enacted and enforced.
52
53
Indiana, Senate Journal (1871), 235.
Ibid., 644.