How Did Nawsa Differ From The Nwp

The fight for women's suffrage in the United States was a complex and multifaceted movement, marked by diverse strategies and ideologies. Two prominent organizations emerged as key players in this struggle: the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) and the National Woman's Party (NWP). While both aimed to secure voting rights for women, their approaches, tactics, and philosophies differed significantly, shaping the landscape of the suffrage movement and ultimately contributing to the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Divergent Paths to Suffrage: NAWSA and the NWP

NAWSA, formed in 1890 through the merger of the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association, represented a more conservative and moderate approach to achieving suffrage. Led by prominent figures like Susan B. Anthony and later Carrie Chapman Catt, NAWSA focused on state-by-state campaigns, believing that building support at the local level would eventually lead to a national amendment.

In contrast, the NWP, founded in 1916 by Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, adopted a more radical and confrontational approach. Inspired by the militant tactics of the British suffragettes, the NWP employed direct action, protests, and civil disobedience to demand immediate federal action on women's suffrage.

Ideological Differences: A Tale of Two Philosophies

The contrasting strategies of NAWSA and the NWP stemmed from fundamental ideological differences. NAWSA believed in working within the existing political system, appealing to lawmakers through reasoned arguments and persuasive lobbying. They sought to convince men that granting women the right to vote would benefit society, often emphasizing women's roles as mothers and homemakers. This approach, known as the "expediency argument," aimed to make suffrage palatable to a broader audience.

The NWP, on the other hand, rejected the notion of gradual progress and argued that women deserved the right to vote as a matter of fundamental justice. They viewed suffrage as an inherent right, not a privilege to be granted by men. This belief fueled their determination to challenge the status quo through more aggressive tactics.

Tactical Divergence: Lobbying vs. Confrontation

The tactical differences between NAWSA and the NWP were stark. NAWSA focused on:

• State-level campaigns: Organizing local chapters, holding meetings, and lobbying state legislatures to pass suffrage amendments.
• Educational outreach: Publishing pamphlets, giving speeches, and organizing parades to raise awareness and garner support for suffrage.
• Building alliances: Working with other organizations, such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union, to expand their base of support.
• Respectful lobbying: Attempting to persuade male politicians through reasoned debate and polite engagement.

The NWP, however, embraced more confrontational tactics:

• Picketing the White House: Staging silent protests outside the White House, holding banners that criticized President Woodrow Wilson for his inaction on suffrage.
• Parades and demonstrations: Organizing large-scale marches and demonstrations in Washington D.C. and other cities, often facing arrest and violence.
• Civil disobedience: Engaging in acts of civil disobedience, such as blocking traffic and refusing to comply with police orders, to disrupt the status quo and draw attention to their cause.
• Hunger strikes: When imprisoned for their activism, NWP members went on hunger strikes to protest their treatment and demand recognition as political prisoners.

Organizational Structure: A Contrast in Leadership

NAWSA was a large, decentralized organization with a hierarchical structure. It comprised numerous state and local chapters, each with its own leadership and autonomy. Carrie Chapman Catt, as president of NAWSA, provided overall direction and coordination, but the organization's strength lay in its grassroots network of activists.

The NWP, in contrast, was a smaller, more centralized organization with a strong leadership core. Alice Paul, as the NWP's chairman, exerted significant control over the organization's strategy and tactics. The NWP's headquarters in Washington D.C. served as a hub for planning and coordinating its national campaigns.

Membership and Demographics: Broad Appeal vs. Focused Activism

NAWSA attracted a broader range of members, including women from diverse backgrounds and social classes. Its emphasis on state-level campaigns allowed women to participate in ways that suited their individual circumstances and preferences. NAWSA's membership included both moderate reformers and more radical activists, united by their shared goal of achieving suffrage.

The NWP, on the other hand, tended to attract younger, more educated, and more politically active women. Its commitment to direct action and civil disobedience appealed to those who were willing to take greater risks for the cause of suffrage. The NWP's membership was more homogenous, with a shared commitment to radical tactics and a willingness to challenge the established order.

Impact and Legacy: Complementary Contributions

Despite their differences, both NAWSA and the NWP played crucial roles in the success of the suffrage movement. NAWSA's state-by-state campaigns built a solid foundation of support for suffrage, demonstrating its viability and paving the way for a national amendment. The NWP's radical tactics, while controversial, brought national attention to the issue of suffrage and pressured President Wilson and Congress to take action.

• NAWSA's gradual approach helped to normalize the idea of women's suffrage and build a broad coalition of supporters.
• The NWP's confrontational tactics disrupted the status quo and forced the issue of suffrage onto the national agenda.
• Together, NAWSA and the NWP created a dynamic and multifaceted movement that ultimately achieved its goal of securing voting rights for women.

The Wilson Administration and the 19th Amendment

Initially, President Woodrow Wilson resisted calls for a federal suffrage amendment, arguing that the issue should be decided by the states. However, the persistent pressure from both NAWSA and the NWP eventually led him to change his position.

NAWSA's lobbying efforts and demonstrations of support for the war effort during World War I helped to convince Wilson that women deserved the right to vote. The NWP's picketing of the White House and the imprisonment and hunger strikes of its members further increased the pressure on Wilson to act.

In 1918, Wilson finally endorsed a federal suffrage amendment, arguing that it was necessary to win the war and promote democracy abroad. The 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920.

A Closer Look at Key Differences

To further illustrate the distinctions between NAWSA and the NWP, let's examine some key areas in more detail:

1. Goals and Strategies

• NAWSA: Aimed for suffrage through state-by-state campaigns, believing this was the most practical and achievable route. Their strategy involved:

  • Lobbying state legislatures
  • Organizing referendums
  • Educating the public
  • Building a broad base of support

• NWP: Focused on a federal amendment as the primary goal, believing that a national solution was essential for true equality. Their strategy involved:

  • Direct action and protests
  • Picketing the White House
  • Civil disobedience
  • Publicity stunts to gain attention

2. Tactics and Methods

• NAWSA: Employed more conventional and moderate tactics, seeking to persuade and influence lawmakers through reasoned arguments and political pressure. These included:

  • Organizing meetings and conventions
  • Publishing pamphlets and newsletters
  • Lobbying elected officials
  • Participating in parades and demonstrations (in a more organized and less confrontational manner)

• NWP: Utilized more radical and confrontational tactics, seeking to disrupt the status quo and force the issue of suffrage onto the national agenda. These included:

  • Picketing the White House, even during wartime
  • Organizing large-scale protests and demonstrations
  • Engaging in civil disobedience, such as blocking traffic
  • Going on hunger strikes when imprisoned

3. Leadership and Structure

• NAWSA: Led by figures like Susan B. Anthony and Carrie Chapman Catt, NAWSA was a large, decentralized organization with a hierarchical structure. State and local chapters had significant autonomy, allowing for diverse approaches to suffrage advocacy.

• NWP: Founded and led by Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, the NWP was a smaller, more centralized organization with a strong leadership core. Paul exerted significant control over the organization's strategy and tactics, ensuring a unified and focused approach.

4. Philosophy and Ideology

• NAWSA: Adopted a more moderate and pragmatic philosophy, emphasizing the expediency argument for suffrage. They argued that granting women the right to vote would benefit society by:

  • Improving civic life
  • Promoting social reform
  • Protecting the home and family

• NWP: Embraced a more radical and egalitarian philosophy, arguing that women deserved the right to vote as a matter of fundamental justice and equality. They rejected the notion of gradual progress and demanded immediate action on suffrage.

5. Membership and Support

• NAWSA: Attracted a broader range of members, including women from diverse backgrounds and social classes. Its emphasis on state-level campaigns allowed women to participate in ways that suited their individual circumstances and preferences.

• NWP: Tended to attract younger, more educated, and more politically active women who were willing to take greater risks for the cause of suffrage. Its commitment to direct action and civil disobedience appealed to those who were dissatisfied with the slow pace of progress.

The Role of Race and Class

It's important to acknowledge that both NAWSA and the NWP, like many social movements of the time, were not immune to the prejudices and biases of their era.

• NAWSA: While advocating for women's rights, NAWSA often prioritized the concerns of white, middle-class women over those of women of color and working-class women. Some NAWSA leaders even used racist arguments to promote suffrage, suggesting that enfranchising white women would help to maintain white supremacy.
• NWP: While the NWP was more focused on the issue of suffrage itself, it also faced criticism for its lack of attention to the concerns of women of color. Black women were often excluded from NWP activities and events, and the organization did not actively challenge racial segregation or discrimination.

These shortcomings highlight the need for a more inclusive and intersectional understanding of the suffrage movement. While NAWSA and the NWP made significant contributions to the fight for women's rights, their limitations remind us that the struggle for equality is an ongoing process that requires continuous effort and vigilance.

Did the Ends Justify the Means?

The NWP's militant tactics sparked considerable debate, even within the suffrage movement itself. Some argued that their confrontational approach alienated potential allies and undermined the cause of suffrage. Others maintained that their actions were necessary to break through the apathy and resistance that had stalled the movement for so long.

• Arguments in favor of the NWP's tactics:

  • They brought national attention to the issue of suffrage.
  • They pressured President Wilson and Congress to take action.
  • They inspired other activists to challenge the status quo.

• Arguments against the NWP's tactics:

  • They alienated potential allies and supporters.
  • They were seen as unladylike and unpatriotic.
  • They risked violence and imprisonment.

Ultimately, whether the ends justified the means is a matter of perspective. However, it is clear that the NWP's tactics played a significant role in the eventual success of the suffrage movement.

Conclusion: A Synthesis of Strategies

In conclusion, NAWSA and the NWP represented two distinct approaches to achieving women's suffrage in the United States. NAWSA's moderate tactics and state-by-state campaigns laid the groundwork for a national movement, while the NWP's radical actions and confrontational approach forced the issue onto the national agenda. While their ideologies and strategies differed, both organizations played crucial roles in the passage of the 19th Amendment, marking a significant victory for women's rights and transforming the landscape of American politics. Their contrasting approaches offer valuable lessons about the complexities of social change and the importance of diverse strategies in the pursuit of justice and equality. The legacy of NAWSA and the NWP continues to inspire activists and advocates today, reminding us that the fight for equality is an ongoing process that requires both persistence and innovation.