NAWSA Failure

In 1890, the National Woman Suffrage Association and American Woman Suffrage Association merged to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association, or NAWSA. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony both served as President, followed by Carrie Chapman Catt and Anna Howard Shaw. During Shaw’s Presidency, in December 1912, Alice Paul was appointed Chairman and Lucy Burns Vice Chairman, of the Congressional Committee, a branch of NAWSA focused on passing the Women's Suffrage Amendment through Congress. Up until this point, the Congressional Committee had been relatively inactive and obscure. During her time as Chairman, in 1913, Paul also formed her own Congressional Union, separate from NAWSA, made up of the same members as the Congressional

Committee. These parties did not become an issue until later that year.
When asked by Shaw and Catt for the committee’s finance report, Paul stated that she was unable to separate the money from the Congressional Committee and her own Congressional Union.

This caused conflict, because members of NAWSA funded the Congressional Committee, not the Congressional Union, which, again, was unassociated with NAWSA. Once a financial report was produced, it was not complete or satisfactory. On top of that, the Congressional Committee gave notice to the Democratic party that, because President Woodrow Wilson was Democratic, the committee would hold them accountable for congressional inaction on suffrage, which displeased NAWSA; because it opposed the party’s peaceful values. Due to these issues, NAWSA’s leaders, including Shaw, confronted Paul and Burns, suggesting that they separate from the Congressional Union and abandon threats to the Democratic Party, in exchange for remaining a part of NAWSA. In response, the Congressional Union rejected this attempt at compromise, and remained a part of the Union as their own party. The leaders of the Congressional Union refusing to compromise with NAWSA’s leaders, due to conflict surrounding finances and each party’s values, was largely beneficial for the Women's Suffrage Movement because it prevented further conflict about different values and each party successfully appealed to different parts of the

government.
By refusing to compromise with NAWSA, the Congressional Union made a decision that benefited the Women’s Suffrage Movement because this prevented further conflict about the parties’ opposing values. The Congressional Union used militant actions focused on passing a federal amendment to fight for women’s suffrage. Many of the Congressional Union’s values derived from those of their co-founders, Paul and Burns. Before they were leaders of the party, Paul and Burns began their fight for women’s suffrage while in England. For example, Paul snuck into a mayor’s conference at Guild Hall on November 9th, 1909 to make a statement about women’s suffrage. According to a newspaper article by the Philadelphia Tribune in 1910,
Miss Paul,...got into, tha' hall the night before, disguised as a scrub woman, and secreted
herself until the meeting began. “It was a weary vigil,” [Paul] said, “but it paid. The Prime
Minister made a most eloquent speech, and [she] listened, waiting for a chance to break
in. At last there cams a pause. Summoning all [her] strength,; [she] shouted at the top of
her voice: ‘How about votes for women?’”
In like manner, while the Congressional Committee was a part of NAWSA, instead of being the Congressional Union, the committee planned a protest March 3rd, 1913, the day before President Wilson was inaugurated. Women filled the streets, while sidewalks were full of men heckling the marchers. The procession was led by Inez Milholland, lawyer and activist, followed by more than 20 floats, nine bands, and four mounted brigades. Marchers donned clothing from nations in which women had the right to vote, as well as clothing from male dominated professions such as nurse uniforms. Additionally, in 1914, the Congressional Union decided the best way to pass the Women's Suffrage Amendment was to hold the party in office accountable, through the anti-party, in which suffragettes campaigned against Democrats running for office. The hope was that Democrats, wanting to keep their national power, would ensure the passing of the amendment through Congress.
On the other side of the spectrum, NAWSA prefered peaceful actions aimed towards improving men’s opinions of women or towards individual states.

Firstly, after California granted women’s suffrage in 1911, NAWSA distributed a bulletin about the success of the change in California. To convince the public, and especially state government officials, that women’s suffrage would have a positive impact, NAWSA used California as an example, saying “Women Vote More Rapidly and With Fewer Mistakes than men” and “As a Rule Women Do Not Vote Unless They Understand a Question.” As the US joined the war in 1917, NAWSA took part in the war effort. Catt created three sub-branches of NAWSA- Food Conservation, Protection of Women in Industry, and Overseas Hospitals, that worked at infirmaries, rolled bandages, sold savings bonds, and opened a military hospital in France. NAWSA’s actions also included taking over jobs left by men drafted into war, which helped prove to many that women were as a capable as men. Years later, in November 1917, Catt delivered a speech to Congress, about why “Woman suffrage [was] inevitable.” Catt states three reasons why she believed so- “the history of [the] country,” “the suffrage for women already established in the United States,” and lastly, “the leadership of the United States in world democracy [compelled] the enfranchisement of its own women.” The mere existence of this speech shows that NAWSA prefered peaceful methods used to obtain equal voting rights

for women. Accordingly, differences between the Congressional Union’s militant methods targeting a federal amendment and NAWSA’s peaceful methods targeting individual states’ suffrage, although initially causing conflict, were unable to cause conflict once the parties’ separated. Because the Congressional Union rejected compromise with NAWSA, a difference in methodology no longer created conflict between the two, thus preventing further conflict, which benefited the Women’s Suffrage Movement as a whole.