We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
'N Vinnige skandering van 'n lys van Britse regerings in die 19de eeu toon vinnig aan dat hoewel die ampstermyne tot sewe jaar beperk was, die meeste parlemente nie so lank gehou het nie. In plaas daarvan het die bevoegdheid (ontbinding) van 'n parlement deur die monarg, wat onder advies van die premier optree, dikwels nuwe verkiesings begin.
Ek word gelees oor verskeie gevalle van hierdie gebeurtenis, soos oor die koringwette, maar ek het nog nie genoeg geleer om met groot duidelikheid die sprong van gevalle na algemene beginsels te maak nie.
Onder watter omstandighede is die parlemente van die 19de eeu ontbind, en wat het die belangrikste rolspelers gemotiveer? Tussen die premier, die parlement, die monarg, die kiesers, ens., Wie kon invloed uitoefen om 'n verandering af te dwing?
Die bestaande antwoorde bied 'n uitstekende agtergrond vir die politieke situasie in die negentiende eeu. Ek sal probeer om die spesifieke punte wat in die vraag genoem word, te beantwoord.
Voordat ek begin, wil ek 'n paar punte verduidelik.
Eerstens val die vermoë van die monarg om die parlement te ontbind onder wat bekend staan as die Royal Prerogative. Sedert die 'Glorious Revolution' en veral die Handves van Regte van 1689 wat daarop gevolg het, is die uitoefening van Royal Prerogative beperk. Artikel 1 van die Handves van Regte bepaal dat:
"die bevoegdheid om die wette op te skort of die uitvoering van wette deur koninklike gesag sonder toestemming van die parlement is onwettig."
Verder bevestig die handves van regte dat die parlement die reg het om die gebruik van oorblywende prerogatiewe te beperk (wat hulle in die driejaarlikse wet van 1694 gedoen het).
In die praktyk het dit beteken dat die monarg nie meer die parlement kon ontbind sonder die toestemming van die parlement nie. (Daar was egter 'n spesifieke uitsondering. Die parlement is ontbind by die dood van die monarg, soos byvoorbeeld in 1820 gebeur het, hoewel dit - om eerlik te wees - 'n uiterste geval is!)
Die tweede belangrike punt is dat die monarg in die negentiende eeu die premier aangestel het en die absolute reg gehad het om aan te stel wie hulle wou. Dit is duidelik dat dit probleme kan veroorsaak - en dit wel veroorsaak het. Trouens, dit was die oorsaak van wat in die vorige eeu nou bekend staan as 'die dekade van ministeriële onstabiliteit' onder George II. Die HM -regering het 'n interessante artikel oor die ontwikkeling van die instelling van premier op hul webwerf.
Uiteindelik moet ons onthou dat politieke partye in die Verenigde Koninkryk eers in die laat agtiende / vroeë negentiende eeu, in die tydperk van ongeveer 1760 tot 1834, begin saamsmelt het tot die soort partye wat voorheen die "Whig" en 'Tory' -groepe in die parlement dink die beste aan 'n los koalisie van parlementslede met in wese soortgelyke sienings en doelwitte. Daar was egter geen 'party -lyn' oor spesifieke wetsontwerpe wat voor die parlement gekom het nie. Teen 1834 het die groepe so goed gevestig geraak dat Robert Peel die Tamworth -manifest kon uitreik waarin die doelwitte van 'n 'Konserwatiewe Party' gedefinieer word.
Die skeuring is effektief voltooi deur die waterskeidingsverkiesing van 1852, waar die tweepartstelsel van konserwatiewe en liberale partye ontstaan het.
Dus, om u spesifieke vrae te beantwoord:
Onder watter omstandighede is die parlemente van die 19de eeu ontbind, en wat het die belangrikste rolspelers gemotiveer?
Normaalweg het die premier die monarg gevra om die parlement te ontbind. Dit kan wees omdat hulle nie die vertroue van die parlement kan beklee of 'n stabiele regering kan vorm nie (byvoorbeeld in die verkiesing van 1807).
Voor die opkoms van die tweepartstelsel in die middel van die eeu, het twiswetgewing oor kwessies soos Katolieke emansipasie of parlementêre hervorming die verskillende politieke koalisies net laat verander en hervorm. 'N Eerste minister aan die' verkeerde 'kant van sulke wetgewing kan maklik die vertroue van die parlement (of die monarg wat hom aangestel het) verloor.
Omstrede wetgewing nadat die nuwe partye in die 1830's begin verskyn het, soos dié vir die herroeping van die koringwette, kan die nuutgestigte partye verdeel en óf die posisie van die premier versterk (soos die geval was met Robert Peel in die verkiesing van 1841), of dit noodlottig ondermyn (Robert Peel bedank in 1847, eerder as om 'n ontbinding van die parlement te vra, uit vrees dat die komende verkiesing 'n vertrouensstem sal word).
Eerste ministers kan ook 'n ontbinding van die parlement vra omdat hulle 'n politieke voordeel wou verkry. Dit was die geval in die verkiesing van 1806. Toe, soos nou, was sulke pogings om politieke voordeel by 'n verkiesing nie altyd te behaal nie. 'N Ander algemene verkiesing volg in 1807!
Soos hierbo genoem, sou 'n ontbinding veroorsaak word deur die dood van die monarg (bv. Die verkiesing van 1820).
Boonop was dit in die agtiende en negentiende eeu normaal dat eerste ministers 'n ontbinding van die parlement vra na 'n parlementswet wat aansienlike veranderinge in die kiesstelsel tot gevolg gehad het. Dit het byvoorbeeld gebeur tydens die verkiesing van 1832 na die hervormingswet van 1832. Maar toe so 'n daad laat in die lewe van die parlement kom, soos met die Wet op die Verteenwoordiging van die Mense 1884, kan die verkiesing vertraag word, soos gebeur het met (die verkiesing van 1885).
Tussen die premier, die parlement, die monarg, die kiesers, ens., Wie kon invloed uitoefen om 'n verandering af te dwing?
Die premier kan die monarg vra vir 'n ontbinding van die parlement. Toe, soos nou, is vergaderings tussen die monarg en hul premier privaat, so ons weet nie hoe gereeld, indien ooit, die versoek van die premier geweier is nie.
Die parlement kon die posisie van die premier onhoudbaar maak. In sulke gevalle kan die premier bedank of die monarg vra om die parlement te ontbind en 'n verkiesing af te dwing.
Teen die negentiende eeu het die monarg nie meer die gesag gehad om die parlement te ontbind nie, tensy dit deur die parlement self gevra is, gewoonlik in die persoon van die premier.
Die kiesers het geen sê oor die saak nie.
Klik op die skakel "verkiesing" in die Wikipedia -lys van Britse parlemente vir meer inligting oor elke verkiesing.
Die parlement se belangrikste bevoegdheid destyds (en nou) was om die aanbod te beheer - dit wil sê die hoeveelheid geld wat ingesamel is uit belasting wat na die kroon gegaan het. As die kroon (dit wil sê die regering) nie die parlement kon kry om die aanbod te gee wat hy gesoek het nie, het hy in ekstreme gevalle weinig anders as om die parlement te ontbind en 'n verkiesing uit te roei.
Verder het die Septennial Act van 1715 vereis dat die kroon ten minste elke sewe jaar 'n verkiesing belê (dit is in 1911 tot vyf jaar verlaag).
Dit het die maksimum lengte van 'n parlement (en dus die maksimum tydperk tussen algemene verkiesings) van drie jaar tot sewe verhoog. Hierdie plafon van sewe jaar het van 1716 tot 1911 geld.
Die wet het die bepalings van die driejaarlikse wet 1694, wat "die parlement vereis het om jaarliks byeen te kom en een keer elke drie jaar algemene verkiesings te hou, omvergewerp".
GELEENTHEDE
Die sleutel intern kommer was:
- Groot Ierse hongersnood van 1845 en 1852 sterf byna 800 000, wat beduidend tot gevolg gehad het Grondhervormings
- Tonne sosiale hervormings deur Parlement (dink aan Dickens Donker Huis)
- Sommige fokus op onderwys
- Sommige parlementêre hervormings vir meer verteenwoordigende regering
Hoof ekstern kommer was Krimoorlog (1854) (hul Groot Spel) en koloniaal Boereoorloë.
Kortom, die 19de eeu was 'n periode van hervorming wat geleidelik die politieke demokrasie verhoog en die ekonomiese en sosiale toestande vir die algemene bevolking verbeter het.
Hierdie verbeterings het nie toevallig gebeur nie.
INDIVIDUELE
Om sulke hervormings te laat gebeur, het Brittanje in die 19de eeu kenmerkende individue gehad bereid is om te verander (polities) of gehad het 'n beter manier (van die lewe, dinge doen, handel, ens.).
Sleutel politiese leiers:
- W. E. Gladstone - Liberale (Whigs) leier
- Benjamin Disraeli - konserwatiewe (Tory) leier
- Lord Salisbury - konserwatief
- Robert Peel - Konserwatief
Individue bekend vir hul idees / politieke druk:
- William Wilberforce - vir die afskaffing van slawehandel
- Richard Cobden - vir Anti -Corn Law League
- John Bright - vir vryhandel en, saam met Cobden, werk aan koringwette
- Karl Marx - wat sy volwassenheid in Londen, Engeland, deurgebring het en sy meesterstuk ontwikkel het, en wie se invloed duidelik blyk uit die Britse sosiale hervormings van die 19de eeu.
- Frederic William Maitland - nie internasionaal gewild nie, maar baie gerespekteer deur Engelse prokureurs, politici en geleerdes vir hierdie proefskrif (op 25 jaar oud), 'n duidelike Engelse perspektief op vryheid (dws invloedryk op parlementêre hervormings).
'N Britse parlement kon nie langer as sewe jaar duur nie (tot 1911 toe dit na vyf verander is), en prakties is verkiesings in die sesde jaar gehou. Ek fokus dus op verkiesings wat óf lank voor die sesde jaar belê is, óf 'n partyverandering behels. Hier is 'n lys van Britse algemene verkiesings.
Die belangrikste kwessie was die persoonlikhede wat hierdie eksterne gebeure gevorm het.
Die eerste verkiesing van die 19de eeu, in 1802, is ses jaar na 1796 'op skedule' gehou. Maar in die volgende verkiesing, 1806, het 'n Tory-regering aan bewind geval toe sy groot anti-Napoleontiese leier, William Pitt die Jongere, gesterf het . Die vervanging daarvan, 'n Whig -regering, duur slegs een jaar, tot 1807, en word vervang deur die Tories.
Ander Tory -regerings het geval by die dood van onderskeidelik koning George III in 1820 en koning George IV in 1830. Die twee Whig-regerings wat gevolg het, was van korte duur.
Vanaf 1835 draai die volgende paar regerings om sir Robert Peel. Tegnies 'n konserwatief, was hy 'n 'fusionis' wat 'n termyn in 1835 gewen het as 'n konserwatiewe premier van Whig-gesteunde. Hy het ook die Whig -regering wat in 1837 gevolg het, gesteun en in 1841 teruggekeer na die Tories.
Die verkiesing van 1852 word beskou as 'n "waterskeiding" -verkiesing, in soverre dit konserwatiewes en liberale beslis in die Tory- en Whig -partye verdeel het. ('N Soortgelyke ding het in 1980 in die VSA gebeur wat die meeste konserwatiewes in die Republikeinse party en die meeste liberale in die Demokratiese party ingedruk het.) Die Tories word die konserwatiewe party en die Whigs die liberale party.
Vanaf 1857 word die verkiesings in die middel van die eeu oorheers deur Lord Palmerston, 'n suksesvolle bestuurder van buitelandse beleid. Dit was 'toevallig' dat hy ook 'n liberaal en dus 'n Whig was, maar die verkiesing van hierdie man op grond van suksesse in buitelandse beleide het die oorgang van liberale sosiale hervormings moontlik gemaak, veral na die Krim- en Tweede Opiumoorloë van die middel- 1850's.
In die laaste deel van die 19de eeu het die twee voorste konserwatiewe en liberale eerste ministers, Disraeli en Gladstone, byna ewe veel ondervra, maar nie een het 'n meerderheid gehad nie. Hulle regerings is deur omgespartelde derde partye, veral die Ierse Nasionale Party, wat die magsbalans behou het, omvergewerp.
Brittanje van 1754 tot 1783
Henry Pelham sterf in 1754 en word as hoof van die administrasie vervang deur sy broer, die hertog van Newcastle. Newcastle was skerpsinnig, intelligent en hardwerkend en het massiewe politieke ervaring gehad. Maar hy het 'n gebrek aan selfvertroue en 'n mate van visie, en hy word belemmer deur in die House of Lords te wees. In 1755 word Henry Fox as staatsekretaris aangestel en dien as die woordvoerder van die administrasie in die Commons. Fox se promosie vervreem 'n man wat baie interessanter en merkwaardiger was as een van hierdie ministers, William Pitt die Ouere. Pitt het in die 1730's as 'n opposisie -parlementslid toegetree. In 1746 is hy aangestel as betaalmeester -generaal, 'n hoogs winsgewende staatsamptenaar. Maar Pitt, wie se ambisie eerder vir roem en erkenning as geld was, was ontevrede. Die koning hou egter nie van hom nie en het sy loopbaan suksesvol belemmer. In 1755 ontslaan hy Pitt, wat Newcastle begin aanval het op imperiale en buitelandse beleidskwessies.
Rekonstruksie afbreek
Rassisme bly 'n deurdringende krag in die noorde sowel as die suide, en teen die vroeë 1870's het baie Noordelinge begin om die probleme van heropbou op die vermeende minderwaardigheid van swart kiesers te blameer.
Terselfdertyd het die belangrikste besluite van die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof betrekking gehad op die beskerming van grondwetlike wysigings en wetgewing uit die heropbou-era. Die hof se beslissing in die Slagplegersake (1873) het bepaal dat die 14de wysiging slegs van toepassing was op voormalige slawe en slegs regte beskerm deur die federale regering, nie deur die state nie.
Drie jaar later, in die Verenigde State teenoor Cruikshank, het die Hooggeregshof die skuldigbevindings van drie blanke mans wat skuldig bevind is in verband met die slagting van meer as 100 swart mans in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873, as deel van 'n politieke geskil omvergewerp. Die mans is skuldig bevind aan die oortreding van die wet op die handhawing van 1870, wat sameswerings verbied het om burgers grondwetlike regte te ontken en bedoel was om geweld deur die Ku Klux Klan teen swart mense in die Suide te bekamp.
Die uitspraak van die Hooggeregshof en die belofte van 'n behoorlike proses en gelyke beskerming van die 14de wysiging en die belofte van behoorlike proses en die oortreding van die burgerregte deur die state, maar nie deur individue nie, sou die vervolging teen swart geweld al hoe moeiliker maak, selfs as die Klan en ander blanke supremasistiese groepe het gehelp om swart kiesers uit die franchise te ontneem en die blanke beheer oor die Suide te herstel.
Inhoud
Handelinge van die unie 1707 Redigeer
Die eerste stap in die rigting van politieke eenwording is geneem op 1 Mei 1707, toe die parlemente van Skotland en Engeland goedgekeur het Handelinge van die Unie wat die twee parlemente en die twee koninklike titels saamgevoeg het.
Miskien was die grootste enkele voordeel vir Skotland van die Unie dat Skotland vrye handel met Engeland en haar kolonies oorsee kon geniet. Vir Engeland is 'n moontlike bondgenoot vir Europese state wat vyandig teenoor Engeland was, geneutraliseer.
Sekere aspekte van die voormalige onafhanklike koninkryke bly apart. Voorbeelde van Skotse en Engelse instellings wat nie in die Britse stelsel saamgesmelt is nie, sluit in: Skotse en Engelse reg wat apart bly, net soos die Skotse en Engelse bankstelsels, die Presbiteriaanse Kerk van Skotland en die Anglikaanse Kerk van Engeland, asook die stelsels van onderwys en hoër onderwys.
Aangesien die Skotte oor die algemeen goed opgelei was, lewer hulle 'n onproportionele bydrae tot die regering van die Verenigde Koninkryk en die administrasie van die Britse Ryk.
Ierland sluit aan by die Act of Union (1800) Edit
Die tweede fase in die ontwikkeling van die Verenigde Koninkryk tree op 1 Januarie 1801 in werking, toe Groot -Brittanje met die Ierland saamsmelt om die Verenigde Koninkryk van Groot -Brittanje en Ierland te vorm.
Die wetgewende unie van Groot -Brittanje en Ierland is voltooi ingevolge die Act of Union 1800. Die land se naam is verander na "Verenigde Koninkryk van Groot -Brittanje en Ierland". Die wet is aangeneem in die Britse en dus nie -verteenwoordigende Ierse parlement met aansienlike meerderhede wat gedeeltelik (volgens hedendaagse dokumente) bereik is deur omkopery, naamlik die toekenning van eweknieë en eerbewyse aan kritici om hul stemme te kry. [2] Die afsonderlike parlemente van Groot -Brittanje en Ierland is afgeskaf en vervang deur 'n verenigde parlement van die Verenigde Koninkryk. Ierland het dus deel geword van 'n uitgebreide Verenigde Koninkryk. Ierland het ongeveer 100 parlementslede na die House of Commons in Westminster gestuur en 28 eweknieë na die House of Lords.
Napoleontiese oorloë Redigeer
Vyandelikhede tussen Groot-Brittanje en Frankryk hervat weer op 18 Mei 1803. Die doelstellings van die koalisie het in die loop van die konflik verander: 'n algemene begeerte om die Franse monargie te herstel, het nou gekoppel aan die stryd om Napoleon te stop. Die Napoleontiese konflik het die punt bereik waarop latere historici van 'n 'wêreldoorlog' kon praat. Slegs die Sewejarige Oorlog bied 'n presedent vir wydverspreide konflik op so 'n skaal.
Victoriaanse era Redigeer
Die Victoriaanse era was die hoogtepunt van die Britse Industriële Revolusie en die hoogtepunt van die Britse Ryk. Alhoewel dit algemeen gebruik word om te verwys na die periode van koningin Victoria se bewind tussen 1837 en 1901, debatteer geleerdes of die Victoriaanse tydperk - soos gedefinieer deur 'n verskeidenheid sensitiwiteite en politieke kommer wat met die Victoriane verband gehou het - eintlik begin met die verloop van Hervormingswet 1832. Die era is voorafgegaan deur die Regency -era en opgevolg deur die Edwardiaanse tydperk. Die laaste helfte van die Victoriaanse era het ongeveer saamgeval met die eerste gedeelte van die Belle Époque-era van kontinentale Europa en ander nie-Engelssprekende lande.
Ierland en die skuif na Home Rule Edit
Eerste Wêreldoorlog Edit
Verdeling van Ierland Wysig
Empire to Commonwealth Wysig
Brittanje se beheer oor sy ryk het gedurende die tussenoorlogstyd verslap. Nasionalisme het sterker geword in ander dele van die ryk, veral in Indië en in Egipte.
Tussen 1867 en 1910 verleen die Verenigde Koninkryk Australië, Kanada en Nieu -Seeland status "Dominion" (byna volledige outonomie binne die Ryk).
1945-1997 Redigeer
Aan die einde van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog het Clement Attlee en die Arbeidersparty 'n oorwinning in die algemene verkiesing beleef.
Terwyl die land tot in die vyftigerjare begin, het die heropbou voortgegaan en 'n aantal immigrante uit die oorblywende Britse Ryk is uitgenooi om die heropbou te help. Gedurende die vyftigerjare het die Verenigde Koninkryk sy plek as 'n supermoondheid verloor en kon dit nie meer sy groot Ryk behou nie. Dit het tot dekolonisering gelei en teen 1970 al byna al sy kolonies onttrek.
Alhoewel die Verenigde Koninkryk in die 1970's en 1980's geïntegreer is in die Europese Ekonomiese Gemeenskap wat in 1992 die Europese Unie geword het en 'n streng modernisering van sy ekonomie.
Na die moeilike 70's en 80's het die 1990's die begin van 'n tydperk van voortdurende ekonomiese groei wat tot dusver oor 15 jaar geduur het, begin. Volgens die Goeie Vrydag -ooreenkoms is die mening dat baie mense die begin van die einde van die konflik in Noord -Ierland sedert hierdie gebeurtenis was; daar was baie min gewapende geweld oor die kwessie.
In die algemene verkiesing in 2001 het die Arbeidersparty 'n tweede agtereenvolgende oorwinning behaal.
Ten spyte van groot optogte teen oorlog in Londen en Glasgow, het Tony Blair sterk steun gegee aan die inval van die Verenigde State in Irak in 2003. Ses en veertig duisend Britse troepe, een derde van die totale sterkte van die Britse leër (landmagte) , was aktief om te help met die inval in Irak en daarna was die Britse weermag verantwoordelik vir die veiligheid in die suide van Irak in die tyd voor die Irakse verkiesing van Januarie 2005.
2007 was die einde van die premierskap van Tony Blair, gevolg deur die van Gordon Brown. Die volgende premier, David Cameron, is verkies in 2010. Gedurende sy eerste termyn het die Scottish National Party (SNP) die 2011 -verkiesing na die Skotse parlement gewen. Op 18 September 2014 het die SNP 'n referendum gehou waarin die mense van Skotland gevra is of hulle onafhanklik van die Verenigde Koninkryk wil wees. 55% van die kiesers wou in die VK bly.
David Cameron is in 2015 herkies oor beloftes om 'n referendum te hou oor die vraag of die Verenigde Koninkryk die Europese Unie moet verlaat. Dit het op 23 Junie 2016 plaasgevind en is gewen deur die "Verlof" -veldtog met 52% van die stemme. Cameron sou dan bedank en vervang word deur Theresa May as premier wat die land in die proses van 'Brexit' sal lei.
Op Januarie 2020 het Brexit plaasgevind.
Terroriste aanvalle Redigeer
Die Verenigde Koninkryk het ook in die 21ste eeu twee voorvalle van terrorisme in Londen gesien.
Op 7 Julie 2005 ontplof drie bomme om 08:50 tydens die oggendspit op die Londense metro, en 'n vierde ontplof 'n uur later op 'n bus op Tavistock Square. Die aanval, wat deur Moslem -ekstremiste gedoen is, het 52 mense gedood en meer as 700 ander beseer.
Op 22 Maart 2017, presies 'n jaar na die bomaanvalle in Brussel, is vyf mense dood in die Westminster -aanval in 2017 naby die huise van die parlement. Een van hulle was die aanvaller, Khalid Masood, wat ook 'n beampte van die Metropolitaanse Polisie gesteek het, wat later aan sy beserings beswyk het.
Op 22 Mei 2017 het 'twee bombardemente' in die Manchester Arena plaasgevind met 19 mense dood en 50 beseer. [3] Dit is 'n vermeende selfmoordbomaanval. [4]
¹ Die term "Verenigde Koninkryk" is die eerste keer gebruik in die Union with Scotland Act 1706. Dit word egter gewoonlik as 'n beskrywende term beskou, wat daarop dui dat die koninkryke vrylik verenig was eerder as deur verowering. Dit word nie as werklik beskou nie naam van die nuwe Verenigde Koninkryk, wat (volgens artikel een) "Groot -Brittanje" was. Die 'Verenigde Koninkryk' word as 'n naam verwys na die koninkryk wat ontstaan het toe die Koninkryk van Groot -Brittanje en Ierland op 1 Januarie 1801 saamgesmelt het.
² Die naam "Groot -Brittanje" (destyds gespel "Groot -Brittanje") is die eerste keer deur James VI/I in Oktober 1604 gebruik, wat aangedui het dat hy en sy opvolgers voortaan as konings van Groot -Brittanje beskou sou word, nie as konings van Engeland en Skotland nie . Die naam is egter nie op die staat as 'n eenheid word sowel Engeland as Skotland onafhanklik bestuur. Die geldigheid daarvan as die naam van die kroon word ook bevraagteken, aangesien monarge in Engeland en Skotland voortgegaan het met die gebruik van afsonderlike ordonnale (bv. James VI/I, James VII/II). Om verwarring te vermy, vermy historici oor die algemeen die gebruik van die term "Koning van Groot -Brittanje" tot in 1707, en noem dit eerder die konings of koninginne van Engeland en Skotland, volgens die gewone gebruik. Aparte ordinale is laat vaar toe die twee state saamsmelt met die Act of Union 1707, met daaropvolgende monarge wat ordonnale gebruik wat klaarblyklik gebaseer was op die Engelse en nie Skotse geskiedenis nie (daar kan aangevoer word dat die monarge eenvoudig die hoër ordinaal geneem het, wat tot op hede nog altyd Engels was) ). Een voorbeeld is koningin Elizabeth II van die Verenigde Koninkryk, waarna verwys word as 'die Tweede', alhoewel daar nooit 'n Elizabeth I van Skotland of Groot -Brittanje was nie. Die term "Groot -Brittanje" word dus vanaf 1707 algemeen gebruik.
³ Die getal het tussen 1801 en 1922 verskeie kere verander.
4 Die Anglo-Ierse verdrag is bekragtig deur (i) The British Parliament (Commons, Lords & Royal Assent), (ii) Dáil Éireann, en (iii) the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, 'n parlement wat onder die Britse Government of Ireland Act 1920 wat in Britse oë blykbaar die geldige parlement van Suid -Ierland was en 'n byna identiese lid van die Dáil gehad het, maar nietemin afsonderlik moes vergader onder die bepalings van die verdrag om die verdrag goed te keur, en die verdrag dus bekragtig word onder beide Britse en Ierse grondwetlike teorie.
Whigs and Tories: 1688-1832
Van die laaste deel van die 17de eeu tot die vroeë 19de was daar in wese twee groot politieke partye in Groot -Brittanje: die Whigs and Tories. Nie een kan beskryf word as 'modern' in die sin dat georganiseerde kiesers saamwerk en hul verskille in gevaar stel ter wille van wins by die stembusse nie. In die 18de eeu was die enigste kiesers manne van vermoë: die landelike aristokrasie en welgestelde handelaars. Hulle beskou partyorganisasie as oneerlik en aktiwiteite soos veldtogte onder hul status. Van 'n 'mens' sou verwag word om onafhanklik te wees, self te dink en sy eie belange te beskerm. Hy verbind hom moontlik met ander oor 'n spesifieke kwessie, maar sulke alliansies was tydelik en broos. Die vroeë politieke partye was los groepe eendersdenkende individue (genaamd & quotfactions & quot) met min dissipline en minder lojaliteit.
Die partytikette & quot; Whig & quot en & quotTory & quot het as bespotting begin toe hulle die eerste keer verskyn tydens die uitsluitingskrisis van 1678. Oor die hele land was mense nie eens oor die vraag of James Stuart, hertog van York en troonopvolger, toegelaat moet word of nie. Koning Charles II, sy broer. Die Tories het geglo dat James moes slaag, die Whigs dat hy nie moes nie.
Die oorsprong van hierdie geskil word gevind in die godsdienstige en politieke geskille van die vorige honderd -en -vyftig jaar. Met baie bloedvergieting en trauma het die Tudor -monarge van die 16de eeu met die Katolieke Kerk gebreek, 'n Anglikaanse Kerk geskep en 'n protestantse staat gevorm. Hierdie nuwe trou is bevestig tydens die burgeroorloë en die interregnum van 1649 - 1660. Terselfdertyd het Engeland ook 'n paar moderne demokratiese idees begin aanvaar wat die parlement bemagtig en die monargie beperk het. Koning Charles II was waarskynlik in die geheim 'n Katoliek, maar het ten minste in die openbaar die Anglikaanse geloof gehou. James was egter openlik Katoliek en baie vroom. Sommige het sy katolisisme as 'n bedreiging beskou vir al die godsdienstige en politieke veranderinge wat plaasgevind het. Daarom het die Whigs, soos hulle bekend geword het, James se troonopvolging gekant. Diegene wat James se erflike reg op die kroon ondersteun het, het Tories bekend gestaan.
Die term Whig was waarskynlik die afkorting van 'Whiggamore' en verwys ook na 'n perdedief na Skotse Presbiteriane wat met republikeinse idees verbind was, met afwyking en met opstand teen wettige gesag. Deur hulle Whigs te noem, het die Tories probeer om die wat die reg beweer het om die & quot legitieme & quot erfgenaam van die opvolging uit te sluit, te beswadder. In reaksie daarop het die Whigs probeer om diegene wat James se erflike regte ondanks sy geloof ondersteun, te belaster deur hulle 'quoties' te noem. 'Was' waarskynlik ''n Ierse woord wat' banier -outlaw 'beteken.' deur hulle teenstanders.
Die gevolg van die aanvanklike stryd tussen die twee partye tydens die opvolgingskrisis was dat die Whigs verloor het en James koning geword het toe Charles II in 1685 sterf. beledig nie net die Whigs nie, maar baie Tories met sy radikale katolisisme en sy aansprake om te regeer deur & quotDivine Right & quot, soos die outokratiese Katolieke prinse van Europa. Gevolglik het die meeste Whigs en baie Tories saamgesweer om James te verdryf tydens die glorieryke rewolusie van 1688. Na 'n kort stryd het James die troon onheilspellend laat vaar en die parlement het William van Oranje en sy vrou, Mary Stuart, beide Protestante, uitgenooi om gesamentlik die Engelse kroon op te volg. .
Alhoewel die opvolgingskrisis die spesifieke gebeurtenis was wat gelei het tot die stigting van die twee groot partye, het die verskille tussen hulle baie dieper geloop. Oor die algemeen is diegene wat hulself as Whigs geïdentifiseer het, geïnspireer deur die waardes van liberale demokrasie wat deur die Verligting teweeggebring is en bestaan uit die edele huise, welgestelde handelaars en nie-Anglikane. Diegene wat hulself as Tory geïdentifiseer het, het bestaan uit die landheren en die Church of England, en was gekant teen die reformisme van die Whigs, soos die uitbreiding van die franchise en die verhoging van die parlementêre verteenwoordiging vir laer klasse.
Na 1688 aanvaar die meeste Tories 'n beperkte weergawe van die Whig -teorie van 'n konstitusionele monargie. Of dit nou reg of verkeerd was, hulle lojaliteit teenoor die nuwe bestelling was egter verdag omdat hulle die opvolging van James ' in die eerste plek ondersteun het. Hierdie vermoede is in 1714 bevestig toe die Tory-predikante van wyle koningin Anne (1702-1714) in die skande gekom het omdat hulle onderhandel het oor die terugkeer van Jakobus II oor haar dood. Hierdie opstand ten gunste van 'n herstel van Stuart (en nog een in 1745) stig die Tories as ondersteuners van absolute monargie en as teenstanders van die Protestantse opvolging. Behalwe vir 'n kort styging van 1710 tot 1714, was die Tories amper honderd jaar lank in 'n swak politieke posisie. Die Whigs het so oorheersend geword na die eerste Jakobitiese opstand dat die tydperk van 1714 tot 1784 dikwels die 'Whig Supremacy' genoem word. etiket.
Met die Franse rewolusie in 1789 en die daaropvolgende oorloë, het die Whigs geskei, met baie wat hulself met die destydse premier William Pitt the Younger in ooreenstemming met die rewolusie verbind het. Pitt en sy opvolgers het bekend geword as Tories, oorspronklik as 'n belediging, maar teen die tyd van die graaf van Liverpool het hulle die termyn aanvaar.
Konserwatief en liberaal: 1832-1922
Die Whig- en Tory -partye het albei verander na die inwerkingtreding van die Groot Hervormingswet van 1832. Twee van die drie groot moderne politieke partye, konserwatief en liberaal, het direk uit hierdie vroeëre partye ontstaan. Die Konserwatiewe Party is in 1834 gestig deur sir Robert Peel as gevolg van sy Tamworth -manifest, 'n toespraak waarin hy die nuwe politieke filosofie uiteensit. Die party was konsekwent sosiaal konserwatief, maar het sy standpunt oor ekonomie verskuif, aanvanklik die vrye handel onder Peel ondersteun, en daarna die grootste deel van die negentiende eeu proteksionisme bevoordeel, om 'n party te word van ekonomiese liberalisme en verminderde regering na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog.
Die Liberale Party is gestig na die ineenstorting van die Whig -party weens die uitbreiding van die Britse middelklas na aanleiding van die Hervormingswet 1832, en was tipies 'n hervormende party. Van die 1840's tot die 1940's is dit sterk gedefinieer deur sy steun vir vryhandel en maatskaplike welsyn, in teenstelling met die konserwatiewe voorkeur vir proteksionisme en private liefdadigheid. Die liberale was ook bekend vir hul pragmatiese ondersteuning vir staatsinmenging in die ekonomie waar nodig, terwyl die konserwatiewes dit op ideologiese gronde teëgestaan het. In sy laaste regering, van 1906-1922, het hy 'n aantal sosiale hervormings ingestel, waaronder welsyn, regulering van werksure en nasionale versekering. Die verdeling van die Liberale Party in die vroeë 1920's het daartoe gelei dat baie vorige ondersteuners hul trou aan die Labour Party oorgeskakel het. Die Liberale Demokrate, die opvolger van die Liberale Party, is sosiaal liberaal en ondersteun tipies hoër belasting om die welsynstaat te ondersteun, maar het 'n toenemende groep ekonomiese liberale.
Konserwatief en Arbeid: 1922 tot hede
Die Arbeidersparty is in 1900 gestig om die standpunte van die werkersklasbevolking en die vakbond te verteenwoordig. Die party was tradisioneel sosialisties of sosiaal -demokraties, wat bewys is deur die instelling van die welsynstaat en sentrale beplanning in die Verenigde Koninkryk in die veertigerjare. Na die verkiesingsukses van Thatcherisme in die tagtigerjare, die rampspoedige gevolg van die algemene verkiesing in 1983 vir die Arbeidersparty en die verkiesingsukses van die SDP-Liberal Alliance, het die Arbeidersparty in die rigting van 'n neo-liberale standpunt gegaan, soos getoon in die Third Way filosofie. Sedert hulle in 1997 in die regering gekom het, het sommige aangevoer dat Arbeid al hoe meer regs geword het. Ander het egter aangedui op groot toenames in maatskaplike besteding as bewys dat die party steeds verbind is tot sosiaal -demokratiese waardes.
Politiek van die 1870's en 1880's
Twee skynbaar inkongruente neigings het die politieke landskap van die laaste kwart van die negentiende eeu gekenmerk. Die burger se belangstelling in verkiesings en politiek was op geen ander tydstip groter as gedurende hierdie tydperk nie. In fact, 80 to 90 percent of the eligible voters (white and black males in the North and white males the South) consistently voted in local and national elections. This amazing turnout occurred at a time when the major political parties differed little on the issues and when the platforms of the two main national political parties were almost indistinguishable. Consequently, throughout the era, voters gave few strict mandates to either parties or individuals and the outcomes of the presidential races were determined by a relatively small number of votes. Although Grover Cleveland, elected in 1884, was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win office since James Buchanan in 1856, no sitting President had a majority of his own party in both houses of Congress for his entire term.
Political activity in the Midwest was both highly partisan and rousingly participatory. Thousands turned out for political rallies and parades, sometimes clothed in cheap but colorful costumes provided by the parties and marching along with the bands and floats. Men and women sat for hours in the hot sun devouring details on the issues of the day, regardless of the fact that the parties differed little on these very issues. These rallies were as much social events as political gatherings.
The political debate was actively carried on in the press. Newspaper circulation far exceeded the number of voters in most counties, indicating that many families subscribed to more than one paper. In 1886, the Midwest published 340 dailies and 2900 weeklies, totals that were almost exactly the same as the number of television and radio stations in the nation in the mid-1950s. These papers flourished because they were semiofficial party organs, and provided a direct route from the party operatives to the rank and file. The news was almost as biased as the editorials.
Voters spoke of political loyalty in the same breath as religious affiliation. Most voted as their fathers had before them. A sample of thousands of interviews taken by directory makers in Illinois and Indiana in the mid-1870s showed that only 2 percent of men were without a party affiliation. Anyone uncomfortable with his party’s position would most likely not split his ticket and almost never switched parties. Instead, if he was really unhappy, he just stayed away from the polls on election day.
Given that the two parties were nearly evenly matched in the Midwest and the nation as a whole in the 1880s, turnout for elections was especially important. Nationally, less than two percentage points separated the total Democratic and Republican vote for congressmen in the elections of 1878, 1880, 1884, 1886 and 1888. On the presidential front, in 1880 Garfield was victorious over Hancock by only 7,000 votes. Cleveland, in 1884, edged out Blaine by only 70,000 votes out of 10 million cast. The Midwest was almost as close Blaine was only 90,000 votes ahead of Cleveland out of 3 million votes cast regionally. Indiana went to Cleveland, the only state in the Midwest to do so, possibly because his vice-presidential running mate was Indiana Senator Thomas A. Hendricks.
Clearly, a small shift in votes, a sharp drop in turnout or a bit of fraudulent manipulation of returns could decide the winners in local, state or even national races. Consequently, the parties aligned their strategy with the two main facts of political life, intense partisanship and very tight races. Indiana and New York were considered the ‘swing’ states, and much effort was expended by both parties on getting out the vote in these two states.
The Parties
THE REPUBLICANS
The Republican Party first appeared on the national ballot in 1856. Following the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Whig party disintegrated, and meetings in the upper mid-western states led to the formation of this new party opposed to the spread of slavery into the western territories. The Republicans quickly became the dominant force in the North, and with the Confederate defeat, known as the party of the victors. The south became solidly Democratic, and would remain so for decades.
After the war, the Republicans continued the Whig tradition of promoting industrial development through high tariffs. The party promoted government activism, primarily to foster economic development. Freedmen and the white, Protestant population of the Northeast comprised their political base. It was during this post-war period that the party became known as the "Grand Old Party", or GOP.
The party advocated moralistic policies based on evangelical Protestant values. They generally supported restrictions on the sale and use of alcohol and limits on business openings on Sunday. Their support came from the Methodists and Baptists of the Northeast and Midwest and other evangelical sects.
The party was not without dissent. After the disgrace and scandal of Ulysses Grant’s administration, a group of Republican civil service reformers provoked a revolt in the 1872 election. This issue was kept alive by a group of New York Republicans, known as Mugwumps, who continued to advocate for reform of the civil service patronage system. Grant was not without his supporters, who were known as Stalwarts. A third group, the Half-Breeds, favored moderate reform and the continuation of high tariffs.
In truth, the parties differed only slightly on the issues in the years after the war. The Republican party, for the most part, favored industrialists, bankers and railroad interests. In fact, more than one scandal during the era arose from corrupt dealings between politicians and railroad barons. Republicans more strongly favored hard money policies and strict laissez-faire economic policies, until public pressure forced the issue of regulation, especially with regard to railroad rates.
THE DEMOCRATS
The modern form of the Democratic party began in the years after the War of 1812. Although the Democrats cannot be credited with starting conventions, platforms and highly institutionalized campaigning, they succeeded in bringing these features to new levels in the party system. From the mid-1830s to the Civil War, the Democrats were the nation’s majority party, controlling Congress, the presidency and many state offices. In general, the Democrats favored a confined and minimal federal government and states’ rights.
The party suffered its first major disruption in the mid-1850s. A large influx of Irish and German Catholic immigration precipitated a strong reaction among northern Democrats. Worries about the future of the "Protestant" nation led to the formation of the Know-Nothing party, which drew off many Democrats. Also, many Democratic leaders were reluctant to take a stand against slavery, and that was viewed as a pro-southern stand that permitted slaveholders to prevail in new territories and consequently to dominate in national politics. The new Republican party astutely played on the nativism and anti-southern sentiment, resulting in a new political alignment.
The Democrat’s second significant era lasted from the Civil War into the 1890s. Partisan loyalties planted early in the century and nurtured during the Civil War kept the party faithful loyal in election after election. Southern whites who had not been Democrats earlier flocked to the party in the aftermath of Reconstruction, making the Solid (Democratic) South a political reality.
Elections and Voting in the 19th Century
Today, the right to fair and free elections is almost taken for granted. However, many of the rights we have today as voters - including the right to a secret ballot and for elections to be duly supervised - were not commonplace until the late 19th century. Until this point, elections results were often open to corruption through practises including bribery and treating of electors, and intimidation and threatening of voters.
This section explores the way in which Parliament responded to calls for electoral reform in the 19th century.
What were voting conditions like in the 19th century? How did Parliament address corrupt practices in elections?
Parliamentary Archives and Norfolk Record Office worked with a local research group to explore elections in the 19th century
Leaving all to younger hands
The campaign to win passage of the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote stands as one of the most significant and wide-ranging moments of political mobilization in all of American history. Among other outcomes, it produced the largest one-time increase in voters ever. As important as the goal of suffrage was, the struggle was always far broader than just the franchise, and it spoke to fundamental questions about women’s roles in politics and modern life: Who does the government permit to vote? What is the relationship between citizenship and suffrage? The suffragists challenged the political status quo at the time and in many ways can be thought of as the voting rights activists of their day. That observation is still true today as women approach their second century of full voting rights and leads us to explore why does the history of women’s suffrage matter?
The women’s suffrage movement always had a deep sense of its own history. In many ways, suffragists were our first women’s historians, none more so than Susan B. Anthony. When the fourth volume of the Geskiedenis van vrouestemreg appeared in 1902, the 82-year-old Anthony looked back with pride at what the movement had accomplished, but she also looked forward to what still needed to be done, penning this inscription in her friend Caroline Healey Dall’s personal copy:
This closes the records of the 19th century of work done by and for women— what the 20th century will show—no one can foresee—but that it will be vastly more and better—we cannot fail to believe. But you & I have done the best we knew—and so must rest content—leaving all to younger hands. Your sincere friend and coworker, Susan B. Anthony. 1
When she wrote those words, Anthony had devoted more than 50 years to the women’s suffrage movement and victory was nowhere in sight. Yet she remained proud of what she and her co-workers had done for the cause, and confident that the future would bring even more progress. I suspect that the suffrage leaders who guided the movement to its successful conclusion on August 26, 1920, felt the same way.
Once the 19th Amendment passed, suffragists claimed a new moniker—that of women citizens.
“Shall Not Be Denied”
The 19th Amendment states that “the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The amendment was originally introduced in Congress in 1878 but it took until 1919 before it enjoyed sufficient bipartisan support to pass the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then it needed to be ratified by the legislatures in three-fourths of the states. By March 1920, 35 states had ratified the amendment, but that left suffragists one short. In August, Tennessee put the amendment over the top, paving the way for women to vote in the 1920 presidential election.
Suffragists-turned-women-citizens
Once the 19th Amendment passed, suffragists claimed a new moniker—that of women citizens. In many ways the suffrage movement was an anomaly, the rare time when a broad coalition of women came together under one banner. In the post-suffrage era, politically engaged women embraced a wide variety of causes rather than remaining united around a single goal. Their political ideologies ran the gamut from progressive to moderate to conservative, but when it came to politics and public life, their message was clear: “We have come to stay.”
In this enlarged perspective, the suffrage victory is not a hard stop but part of a continuum of women’s political mobilization stretching not just between the iconic Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 and the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 but across all of American history. It is still appropriate, indeed welcome, to commemorate the centennial of the 19th Amendment as an important marker in American women’s history. But, rather than positioning 1920 as the end of the story, it is far more fruitful to see it as initiating the next stage in the history of women’s political activism—a story that is still unfolding.
Throughout American history, women have been dedicated political actors even without the vote. Women’s political history is far broader than the ratification of a single constitutional amendment.
Passage of the 19th Amendment: An incomplete victory
When thinking about the larger implications of the suffrage victory, we also need to remember that many women, especially those in Western states, were already voting in the years before the passage of the 19th Amendment. In addition, many women across the country enjoyed the right to vote on the local level in municipal elections and for school committees. Focusing too much on the 1920 milestone downplays the political clout that enfranchised women already exercised, as well as tends to overshadow women’s earlier roles as community builders, organization founders, and influence wielders. Throughout American history, women have been dedicated political actors even without the vote. Women’s political history is far broader than the ratification of a single constitutional amendment.
Celebrating the passage of the 19th Amendment also slights the plight of African American voters, for whom the 19th Amendment was at most a hollow victory. In 1920, the vast majority of African Americans still lived in the South, where their voting rights were effectively eliminated by devices such as whites-only primaries, poll taxes, and literacy tests. For Black Americans, it was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, not the 14th, 15th, or 19th Amendments, that finally removed the structural barriers to voting.
In a parallel disfranchisement, few Native American women gained the vote through the 19th Amendment. Not until 1924 did Congress pass legislation declaring that all Native Americans born in the United States were citizens, which cleared the way for tribal women to vote. But Native American women still faced ongoing barriers to voting on the state and local levels, especially in the West, as did Mexican Americans. Puerto Rican women did not gain the vote until 1935 and Chinese American women not until 1943. When assessing who can exercise the right to vote, it is always essential to ask who cannot.
Women suffragists cover a billboard to advertise their Washington, D.C. parade. Nation-wide demonstrations were held in May 1914 to support the Federal Amendment enfranchising women (Shutterstock) Suffrage and feminism
Women’s demand for fair and equitable treatment in the political realm emerges as an integral part of the history of feminism. To protest women’s exclusion from voting demanded an assault on attitudes and ideologies that treated women as second-class citizens to formulate that challenge involved conceptualizing women as a group whose collective situation needed to be addressed. Unfortunately, white suffragists often failed to realize they were speaking primarily from their own privileged class and race positions. The fact that certain groups of women, especially women of color, were often excluded from this supposedly universal vision demonstrates how racism intersected with feminism throughout the suffrage movement and its aftermath. Contemporary feminists have significantly broadened their commitment to recognizing the diversity of women’s experiences and worked hard to include multiple perspectives within the broader feminist framework, but it is still a struggle. The suffrage movement is part of that story, warts and all.
A global struggle
The history of women’s suffrage also reminds us that the struggle for the vote was a global phenomenon. Starting in the 1830s and 1840s, American and British abolitionists forged connections that influenced the early history of the suffrage movement. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott first met at an antislavery conference in London in 1840. Women’s international networks were especially vibrant in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1888, the International Council of Women was founded to bring together existing women’s groups, primarily from North America and western Europe, with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony as its prime instigators. Its offshoot, the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, founded in Berlin in 1904 “to secure the enfranchisement of the women of all nations,” fed the growth of the women’s suffrage movement worldwide. Women today enjoy nearly universal access to the franchise, but it is a misnomer to say that women were “given” the vote. Just as in the United States, women around the globe had to fight for that right.
Empowered through solidarity
Participating in the suffrage campaign provided women with the kind of exhilaration and camaraderie often described by men in periods of war or political upheaval. Women were proud to be part of this great crusade, and they cherished the solidarity it engendered for the rest of their lives. Frances Perkins, a veteran of the New York suffrage campaign and the first woman to serve in the cabinet as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, remembered it this way: “The friendships that were formed among women who were in the suffrage movement have been the most lasting and enduring friendships—solid, substantial, loyal—that I have ever seen anywhere. The women learned to like each other in that suffrage movement.” 2
National Woman’s Party activists watch Alice Paul sew a star onto the NWP Ratification Flag, representing another state’s ratification of the 19th Amendment (Library of Congress) Factions within the movement
The history of women’s suffrage also confirms the difficulty of maintaining unity in social movements. Women’s rights and abolition were closely allied before the Civil War, but that old coalition linking race and gender split irrevocably in the 1860s. The dispute was about who had priority: newly freed African American men or white women, who also wanted to be included in the post-Civil War expansion of political liberties represented by the 14th and 15th Amendments. Suffragists such as Lucy Stone, Henry Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe had hoped for universal suffrage, but once the amendments were drafted, they supported ratification despite the exclusion of women. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton adamantly refused to support the amendments, often employing racist language to imply that white women were just as deserving of the vote as African American men, if not more so. By 1869 the suffrage movement had split in two over this question, not to reunite until 1890.
That split was both strategic and philosophical, as was the one in the 1910s between Carrie Chapman Catt’s mainstream National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) and Alice Paul’s upstart National Woman’s Party (NWP). Catt’s much larger group tended to favor a state-by-state approach, while Paul and her supporters focused on winning a federal amendment. In addition, NAWSA was committed to working within the system while the NWP took to the streets, silently picketing the White House to express their outrage at women’s voteless status. In the end both sides were necessary to win ratification, just as the 19th century split had allowed competing personalities with different approaches to advance the movement in their own ways.
It is a misnomer to say that women were “given” the vote. Just as in the United States, women around the globe had to fight for that right.
Toward the future of equality in practice as well as in law
By the early 20th century, women had already moved far beyond the domestic sphere and boldly entered public life, yet a fundamental responsibility and privilege of citizenship—the right to vote—was arbitrarily denied to half the population. The 19th Amendment changed that increasingly untenable situation, representing a breakthrough for American women as well as a major step forward for American democracy. The wave of female candidates in the 2018 midterm elections and the unprecedented number of women who ran for president in 2020 built directly on the demands for fair and equitable access to the political realm articulated by the women’s suffrage movement.
Historian Anne Firor Scott provides an especially evocative image of how winning the vote was part of larger changes in women’s lives and in American society more broadly: “Suffrage was a tributary flowing into the rich and turbulent river of American social development. That river is enriched by the waters of each tributary, but with the passage of time it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish the special contributions of any one of the tributaries.” 3 Think of the contributions of the hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file women who participated in the fight to win the vote as the tributaries that make up suffrage history. And then think of suffrage history as a powerful strand in the larger stream of American history, which is richer and stronger because it heeded Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s prescient statement at Seneca Falls that all men and women are created equal. While the United States still lacks truly universal suffrage and gender equity remains a widely debated issue, the 19th Amendment represented a giant step toward both goals and left a firm constitutional foundation for future progress. When Susan B. Anthony talked about “leaving all to younger hands,” I like to think this is what she had in mind.
Late 19th Century
In the second half of the 19th Century, printing technology in the United States was advancing to meet the needs of a population expanding from coast to coast. Faster printing presses and the construction and connection of the railroad system and postal service made the manufacture and distribution of books, magazines, and newspapers more efficient, and the nation was able to read about and respond to current events more quickly than ever before. Illustration was important to publications like Frank Leslie&rsquos Illustrated Newspaper en Harper&rsquos Weekly. Artists, salaried as on-site reporters, sketched events as they were taking place, while freelancers were paid to do political cartoons, allegorical pictures, and story illustrations. In order for the artwork to be printed, the original artwork&mdashgenerally done in pen and ink&mdash had to be interpreted by wood engravers who created the printing blocks that would go on the presses.
Winslow Homer, engraving made from reportage drawing, "Surgeons at the Rear," 1862
Harper and Brothers publishers, already successful with its books and illustrated weekly newspaper, created a monthly magazine and formed a staff of in-house artists to make pen drawings on a wide range of subjects and narrative fiction. These illustrators of the 1870s and 1880s were among the finest in the world, each with his own specialty: Thomas Nast for political cartoons, Thur de Thulstrup for history and horses, Howard Pyle for Americana, Edwin Austin Abbey for all things costumed or English, William A. Rogers for urban scenes, A. B. Frost for rural subjects and humor, and Frederic Remington for the western frontier. This great collection of talent led American publishing to finally rival the quality of European illustrated journals.
In the words of his biographer, &ldquoIf Thomas Nast was merely a cartoonist, then Abraham Lincoln was merely a politician.&rdquo Followers of Nast&rsquos political cartoons tripled the circulation of Harper&rsquos Weekly. Political personalities that he satirized were weakened and usually dethroned, and every presidential candidate that he supported was elected. He expressed his opinion on every important social and political issue of his time, created the elephant and donkey symbols for the Republican and Democratic parties and gave America its now familiar portrayals of Uncle Sam and Santa Claus.
Thomas Nast, cover illustration, Harper's Weekly, 1874
English artist/illustrators associated with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood&mdashDante Gabriel Rosetti, Edward Burne-Jones, Frederick Sandys, A.B. Houghton, and others&mdashcreated drawings for books and literary journals. Typically, these would be translated by wood engravers or wood block cutters. The Dalziel Brothers were the finest engraving craftsmen of their time and their interpretations of artists' pen work was said to actually improve the picture's quality. The English were the first to adapt Japanese colored wood block printing techniques to book production. Edmund Evans, a former engraver, designed a method of printing illustrations in six colors and employed the talents of Walter Crane, Randolph Caldecott, and Kate Greenaway. Near the end of the century, the English illustrator Aubrey Beardsley was creating elegant and decadent work which was also, in part, influenced by Japanese graphic art. In France, the commercial posters of Czech artist Alphonse Mucha were the epitome of Art Nouveau illustration style. Art was drawn onto multiple stone lithographic plates representing particular colors, and resulted in a full-color effect. Color lithography, also called "chromolithography," was being used to produce advertising posters, business cards, and greeting cards and also for magazine covers and center pages (Joseph Keppler). Towards the end of the century, photoengraving allowed artists' original line art to be exactly reproduced without having to be interpreted through hand engraving. The halftone screening process was used to reproduce tonal paintings and photographs.
Arthur Boyd Houghton, book illustration (engraved by the Dalziel Bros.), 1868
Kate Greenaway, watercolor illustration, 1879
Aubrey Beardsley, book illustration in woodcut, from Salomé, a play by Oscar Wilde, 1894
Alphonse Mucha, lithographic print, "The Arts: Poetry," 1898
Joseph Keppler, colored lithograph, "Nevermore" (President William Henry Harrison), Puck magazine, 1890
Howard Pyle became well-known for his illustrations in Harper&rsquos Monthly Magazine and his illustrated children&rsquos books. He told the story of the legendary Robin Hood in an illustrated novel and revealed the world of pirate lore to readers of his illustrated short stories. In the 1890s he decided that he wanted to teach what he had learned through experience. At the time there were no courses in any schools or colleges for studying illustration, so he offered his services to the Drexel Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and in 1896 began teaching there. In that first year he had five students of extraordinary talent&mdashthree women and two men: Violet Oakley, Elizabeth Shippen Green, Jessie Wilcox Smith, Maxfield Parrish, and Frank Schoonover. Pyle&rsquos classes grew from year to year as his reputation as a teacher spread. He created a special summer course for his most promising students that was held in an old mill along the Brandywine River in the village of Chadd&rsquos Ford, Pennsylvania, and in 1900 he opened his own, tuition-free school in Wilmington, Delaware. The training he provided produced a crop of confident and supremely skilled young artists whom Pyle personally shepherded into their first professional work. The narrative realism that Pyle and they practiced became the primary approach to illustration of the early 20th Century and would come to be called the &ldquoBrandywine Tradition.&rdquo
Howard Pyle, oil painting, "Walking the Plank," later engraved for Harper's Monthly Magazine, 1887
Howard Pyle, oil painting, The Flying Dutchman, 1900
What voting rights issues remain today?
While voting rights in America have come a long way toward ensuring equal ballot access for all, many scholars and activists argue that the overtly racist Jim Crow laws of the past have given way to discriminatory policies, like voter ID laws, cuts to early voting, polling place closures, and limits to pre-registration.
Strict voter ID laws and other restrictions enacted by Texas and North Carolina in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder were struck down in federal court, with one federal appeals court finding that North Carolina's law targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision."
Among voting issues and controversies in recent years, in 2018, former Georgia Secretary of State and current Governor Brian Kemp was accused of putting 53,000 voter registration applications "on hold" for mismatched names, and incorrectly purging 340,000 voters from the rolls.
In North Dakota, where most Native Americans who reside on reservations only have a PO box, the US Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring voters to bring an ID to the polls with a residential address. The ruling left Native communities scrambling to obtain proper IDs just weeks before the election.
Along with the predominately non-white citizens of American territories like Guam and American Samoa, almost 6 million taxpaying Americans with felony convictions were barred from voting in the 2018 midterms due to state-level felon disenfranchisement laws.
In November 2018, voters in Florida approved a constitutional amendment overturning the state's disenfranchisement law for good, allowing around 1 million formerly disenfranchised residents to vote. The following year, the Florida Legislature passed a law that requires people with felony convictions to pay off any court fines and fees before they can register to vote, which critics say discriminates against poorer residents who cannot afford to do so. In July 2020, the Supreme Court allowed Florida to keep this law in place — it continues to be appealed.
