Analysis Of Women’s Suffrage Poems Published In New York Times
During the late nineteenth and into the early twentieth century, the previously suggested idea of women’s suffrage became a much more popular issue in society; one for which people had begun to fight. Women’s suffrage was highly controversial during this time period for many reasons which attributed to the fact that it took the United States almost 150 years to grant this inalienable right.
From 1895 to 1910 the New York Times (NYT) newspaper publishing company printed many women’s suffrage poems, one of these being “Let Her Come”, which was published anonymously. This poem is pro women’s suffrage and highlights the indisputable reasoning behind why women should have the right to vote in a manner that was understable for most yet poetic simultaneously. Contrastingly, during the mid to late 1800s, William Lloyd Garrison, a popular abolitionist and suffragist published a poem titled “The Anti-Suffragist”. This poem describes the mindset of an anti-suffragist during the time period in a seemingly ironic and sarcastic way while still portraying this people group’s viewpoint accurately.
As aforestated, both of these poems were written by people who believed strongly in the right of women to vote and worked tirelessly for such. They were both written with the purpose of promoting the agenda of women’s suffrage but one went about it by stating the reasoning behind women should have the right to vote and the other did so by discrediting those who disagreed with women’s suffrage. The poem in the NYT states, “[. . . ] but civic right an’ righteousness in might streams would run ‒ we’d never see another spot, not even on the sun; the great millenium would dawn, them suffrage leaders say, an’ sorrow, sin, an’ sickness would ferever flee away” (NYT). By making such enthusiastic and powerful statements regarding the importance of women in government, beginning with awarding them the right to vote, the author of this poem suggests the dire need of women’s suffrage. With the suggestions of the extermination of major world issues, this exaggeration proves how important suffragists felt this issue was during this movement. Garrison, contrasting in methodology, states, “The people said, ‘How smart she is! Her public talent shines; she could run a city or a state on vastly better lines than half the men in office, and she’s honestly itself; if we have her like in congress, it would not be run for pelf. ‘Tis a pity that a lady with an energy so vast should be wasting it fighting in laws that Nature made to last’” (Garrison). By prefacing the end of the passage with information regarding why women should have the right to vote and then following this voice up with the ideology of the anti-suffragists, Garrison is able to display both viewpoints simultaneously. Therefore, people could understand the reasoning behind women’s suffrage and why many people disagreed with this amendment.
Similarly, the two poems come to a close with a strong conclusion that highlights the dire importance of women’s suffrage and solidifies the objectives of the two writers. The writer is the New York Times concludes with, “Let loose them tides of goodness that are waitin’ to be hurled by the power of Votin’ Women on a poor defenseless world” (NYT). This statement affirms the objective of the writer by stating clearly the importance of women’s suffrage and how drastically it will affect the United States and the world. Much the same, Garrison closes by stating, “I shall never remonstrate, for I know her worth and skill, but labor all the harder for the woman suffrage bill” (Garrison). Garrison solidifies his firm belief in women’s suffrage and willingness to fight for this right in this conclusion. By doing this, he proves the fact that he strongly disagrees with the perspectives of the anti suffragist of which he expressed prior.
Although these two poems and authors share a common viewpoint and goal regarding women’s suffrage, their method of displaying such a viewpoint differs in representation.
