Question

Who did not support the 19th amendment (women's right to vote) ? Why?

Answer 1

@jim_thompson5910 I can't find the answer anywhere..

Answer 2

I would assume pretty much any man in power who wasn't willing to give up that power and share it

Answer 3

if you need specific people, then look here

http://www.history.com/news/the-mother-who-saved-suffrage-passing-the-19th-amendment

and it says

"the man was Harry Burn, a 24-year-old representative from East Tennessee ...The red rose signified his opposition to the proposed 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"

Answer 4

here's another link

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteenthkobach.html

Answer 5

Thank you!! I said President Wilson never really accepted women suffrage. Although he eventually allowed women to vote, he stated “Universal suffrage is at the foundation of every evil in this country.”
but if my teacher is technical this might not work..

Answer 6

yeah at first he was against it and even amused by their protests

but after all the turmoil and the war, he slowly changed his mind on the issue

Answer 7

do you know of anyone who supported the 22nd amendment?

Answer 8

have a look at this page

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Legislation-Presidential-Congressional-337/22nd-amendment.htm

Answer 9

its hard to say who supported it first, but in the end when it was passed, a lot of people supported it because they felt FDR held the office of president for too long and held too much power

Answer 10

I suspect a lot of people opposed the 19th Amendment, and similarly opposed the 15th, because they felt that voting was something the states should individually determine, based on their own circumstances. They felt that the qualifications to be a voter was not a power originally given to Congress by the Constitution, and it should stay that way.

At the time of the 19th Amendment, some states granted women the right to vote, some did not, some had lower voting ages than others, some did not, some had certain tests to vote (literacy test, ownership of property) and some did not. The argument would be that Congress was in no position to determine for each state exactly what the right qualifications for voting were -- that should be left up to the people of each state to define. And if, for example, the particularly culture of Nebraska said women should vote, and of Alabama that they should not, then the right of the people in each state to make up their own mind should be respected by Congress.

The argument isn't very strong, once the 15th Amendment passed, of course (and that one passed largely because Republicans wanted to ensure dominance by acquiring the black vote). It is also philosphically weakened by the presence in the Constitution itself (Article 4, Section 4) of the power of Congress to ensure that each state had a republican form of government.

That is, the Constitution explicitly prohibits Alaskans, say, from voting themselves into a dictatorship -- voting to give the governor all power and dissolve the Alaskan legislature. If the Constitution gives Congress *that* kind of power, it's hard to see how, philosophically, it isn't at least somewhat the business of the United States to set nationwide standards for who can, and cannot, vote, since that is the basis of the "republican form of government."

But keep in mind the century between 1820 and 1920 was a steady evolution of the nation from one where *any* activity of the Federal government beyond what was strictly necessary -- what simply could not be accomplished at the state level -- was viewed with great suspicion, to a nation in which "federalism" is kind of a joke, where the power of the states is severely circumscribed by the power of the Federal government. Opposition to efforts to define the nature of the government of each state was natural, and explains much of the opposition to the specific changes made during this period to bring much more of the life of Americans under the scrutiny and control of the national government.

As for the idea that the 19th Amendment was opposed by men not wanting to give up power to women on the grounds of sexism -- this is absurd. The 19th Amendment was proposed and passed entirely by men. Not a single woman voted on the issue. The ONLY reason it passed was because men in general felt morally obliged to share power with women. It is one of the single best examples of selfless non-sexism ever, and if there is a parallel historical case the other way -- a case in which women, having all the power, voluntarily surrendered much of it to men, simply because they felt it was the right thing to do -- I don't know of it.

Answer 11

Thank you both for the help! Who opposed the 22nd amendment? I have failed to find any answers to these type of questions..

Answer 12

I guess I could use some of the presidents as examples that wanted to run for 3 or more terms.

Answer 13

It was specifically rejected by the states of Oklahoma and Massachusetts:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am22

It would probably not have been super popular among die-hard FDR Democrats, who quite rightly saw it as a rebuke of FDR's four terms. But it should be borne in mind that a lot of people thought FDR had gone too far, that Washington's example of two terms was a wise one that should've been followed indefinitely.

On the other hand, there were people who felt that special conditions might occasionally merit the re-election of a President to a third term, and why should the people be hamstrung in their wish to do so? (That was the argument when FDR was elected to a third term in 1940, just before the US got into the Second World War.) Generally, Presidents aren't able to serve a third term even in the relatively few cases they want to. The popularity of a President usually declines in his second term, and of the few who actually sought a third term, most were defeated in primaries. Even their own supporters may feel it's someone else's turn.