"Right In Theory, Wrong In Practice": Women's Suffrage And The Reconstruction Amendments

-- J. of American Const. Hist. --- (forthcoming 2025)

60 Pages Posted: 8 Jan 2025 Last revised: 12 Apr 2025

See all articles by Gerard N. Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Date Written: November 27, 2024

Abstract

This Essay explores the most remarkable constitutional argument ever forgotten. In 1871, Representative William Loughridge of Iowa dissented from a report by the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee rejected a petition by Victoria Woodhull claiming that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments gave women the right to vote. Representative Loughridge replied with a defense of women’s suffrage that was the first official declaration of constitutional sex equality.

The Woodhull Petition and the Loughridge Dissent are a treasure trove that should be added to the constitutional canon. They pioneered the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment gave women equal citizenship and that legal distinctions based on sex can be irrational. They made the first textual and structural arguments for the right to vote. The Loughridge Dissent also defended an interpretive stance that rejected original meaning and tradition in favor of a panoramic construction of the Constitution as "right in theory but wrong in practice." Lastly, recognizing the creative work of the suffragists and their fellow travelers is a vital first step toward filling the between constitutional practice, which cares about women's rights, and constitutional theory, which generally does not.

The Woodhull Petition and the Loughridge Dissent also advanced textual claims that challenge modern assumptions. For instance, they said that the Fifteenth Amendment affirmatively recognized a "right of citizens of the United States to vote" instead of merely proscribing a certain kind of voting discrimination. Loughridge relied on the Constitution's Preamble as authority for the proposition that women's suffrage could not be denied, instead of treating the "We the People" paragraph as purely ceremonial. Finally, he argued that the text is sometimes best read descriptively or agnostically rather than prescriptively; an approach which could lead to a fresh of view of constitutional issues such as voting rights for ex-felons and the death penalty.

Suggested Citation

Magliocca, Gerard N., "Right In Theory, Wrong In Practice": Women's Suffrage And The Reconstruction Amendments (November 27, 2024). -- J. of American Const. Hist. --- (forthcoming 2025), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5036471 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5036471

Gerard N. Magliocca (Contact Author)

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law ( email )

530 West New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
United States
317-278-4792 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
149
Abstract Views
623
Rank
426,820
PlumX Metrics