© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
MP3 file derived from WAV preservation master, which was derived from original analog cassettes.
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South.
An audio file with the interview complements this electronic edition.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar and spelling have been preserved.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as "
All em dashes are encoded as —
Transcript on deposit at The Southern Historical Collection, The Louis Round Wilson Library
Citation of this interview should be as follows:
“Interview
A-0324, in the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern
Historical Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill”
Women's rights activist and Democratic Party advocate Martha McKay describes her work with the North Carolina Women's Political Caucus (NCWPC) and its lobby for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1973. That year, the ERA went before the North Carolina General Assembly for ratification. Because of the active lobbying campaign of the NCWPC, the ERA was expected to pass through the North Carolina Senate following a vote by Governor James Holshouser that would break an anticipated 25-25 stalemate. McKay describes how Senators Gordon Allen and Mike Mullens changed their votes at the last moment, effectively defeating the ERA that year. McKay also discusses the organization of opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, focusing specifically on the role of external funding, the influence of Phyllis Schlafly, the position of North Carolina Judges Susie Sharp and Naomi Morris, and the impact of media coverage. Finally, McKay briefly discusses "typical" pro- and anti-ERA women and the impact of the defeat on the NCWPC.
Martha McKay, women's rights activist and Democratic Party member, describes the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in the North Carolina General Assembly in 1973. Focusing on the role of the North Carolina Women's Political Caucus in lobbying for ratification of the amendment, McKay describes how the opposition successfully organized to defeat the amendment and how that defeat affected the NCWPC.
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
What do you think were the major reasons for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment?
Well, it's somewhat complicated. I think that probably the majority of
the legislators simply didn't want to have to be recorded on it one way
or the other. I think it would have gone on through if groups of
preachers and women who were making a lot of noise in opposition hadn't
gone down and started lobbying against it. It had not appeared to be
controversial when it was first introduced. We knew that it had been
fought in other states, of course, we tried to get it up as soon as
possible, but anyway, they came down there. I think that once it became
somewhat controversial, the fact of the matter was that the majority
just didn't want to have to vote one way or the other. They tried, the
Democratic leadership, tried to provide them with an out. I
Was that a part of the Women's Caucus, the Radification Council?
We formed it and we paid for it. There were many women's groups that were
in there. The Federation of Women's Clubs, the League of Women Voters,
the AAUW, Association of Women Deans for North Carolina, The North
Carolina Secretaries Association, United Church Women, just about every
women's organization that was of significence in the state. But we of
the Caucus, and those organizations . . . and the BPW, they were in
there, the Business and Professional Women, they've been working,
educating their membership on the Equal Rights Amendment for fifteen or
twenty years. And
You mean the referendum bill?
Yes, that's what people in the legislature were telling us. Give or take
a few, with the weight being thrown to the side of the defeat of the
referendum bill. The vote, however, was something like eight-six to
thirty-two and I think that . . . I don't know whether to use the word,
"scared" . . . but it scared them that the women knew
how to use the tools of politics that effectively. I mean, that when you
begin to move toward the real challenge of power, those that have the
power get challenged. The real channels of power is what I started to
say . . . and I think that probably was it. I never went over there and
interviewed people, but my guess would be that there was a little
suprise that it wasn't accepted cheerfully in all quarters. Because what
they did immediately was to throw it to the Senate. And they did that by
subterfuge . . . I call it subterfuge, I don't know what they would call
it. They
Yes, I've run into her in my research.
Yeah, well, this guy told me.
Now, was this Folger, Senator Folger was head of the Senate committee . . .
No, it was
Yeah,
And that was brought up at the February 8th hearing, the letter was read, was that the main expression of her opinion?
She made some telephone calls. This is my understanding, now. She didn't
tell me, but I understood him to say that she had made a telephone call.
I believe that Kitch used to live in Greensboro before he moved east,
and it seems to me that maybe he had lived in Reidsville for a while,
which is where Susie Sharp is from. And it's my understanding, and I
didn't try to track it down, but that she did make some telephone calls.
I wouldn't swear to it, but that's my understanding. My memory is that I
heard
Yes.
I believe that he made that comment, that that was just really wild, "just too bad . . . "
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
Well, at any rate, as I say, with a more experienced legislator . . . however, this young man, he is young, it's only his second session. He has ambitions, you know, to either stay in the legislature and work up the ladder, or run for state-wide office or something, and therefore, you just don't throw your weight around. Besides, he accepted it as genuine, you know and it just didn't occurr to him to say . . . he just didn't have the experience to come back with what Charlie Phillips later said he would have done. So, at any rate, they got by with it. Because, you see, it would have passed in the House, clearly. Although, we know that there were some people who voted against the referendum bill because they felt that it was wrong. They had been told very clearly in testimony that it was the duty of the legislature to vote . . .
I think that John Sanders mentioned that to me . . .
Yes, I'm sure he did. He didn't mention much, but he mentioned that. So, that was very clear, that it was their duty and no matter how the state voted, they would have to take a vote on it sooner or later. Of course, we knew that it really didn't have anything to do with that. And then, they pulled this manoeuvre and . . .
So, by copping out with the referendum, it prevented them from bringing it back up in the House before the Senate . . .
Back up? It hadn't been up.
Well, I mean putting it before the floor of the House.
And they were sure by the eighty-six, thirty-two vote, as we were, that it would pass. And as I say, the whole thing was, "I guess that we better give the boys an out." Those were the words used when Sawyer was asked to put the referendum bill in. And so, since that didn't give them an out, they had to give the boys an out by say that Kitch Josey wasn't able to have this committee meeting. It was due to come up that day and without question, would have been referred out that day. Which meant that it would have gotten to the floor of the House the next week. Since it wasn't held that day, I believe the Senate committee either met that very same day or shortly thereafter, and they voted it out.
The very next day, following the referendum vote.
Yeah, that's what it was, the House committee, I believe, had been
scheduled to meet on Thursday. I remember now, because it was Thursday
night that I got the message that it had been postponed and it was
Friday morning that I called up Whichard and asked him what the hell had
happened, about 7:30. Or maybe he called me that night. It doesn't
matter.
Would you comment on Mike Mullins and Gordon Allen backing out at the last minute.
O.K. Just let me finish this. So, we had done all that work, as you can see, and so we were fearful. However, we went to work on the Senate and we didn't have but about five days. And we worked like dogs and we had it. When they walked in there, we had it twenty-five, twenty-five. And they knew it.
And you believe that you had it.
We did have it. We had it in committments. We can't help it if they are liars. You know, they're not honorable men. Gordon Allen wrote a constituent and said, "I intend to vote, I haven't made up my mind all those times, but now I intend to vote, when it comes up, for ERA." And he wrote that the weekend before. On Saturday night before that vote, we had it. As a matter of fact, we had it twenty-seven on Saturday night. Well, two that had been kind of wavering, flaked out before Wednesday.
Who were they.
One of those that we thought we had a chance with was Barker. The
Democrat Barker from Wake County. And he flaked out. We found out that
morning, and somebody else that we thought we had flaked
But, that still would have been twenty-five.
When they walked in the door, it was twenty-five, twenty-five. Mullins had given his committment, and so had Gordon Allen. In writing. So, I had exactly . . . see, you understand that the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment had nothing to do with it. Gordon Allen did not want to make Jim Hunt a hero. Hunt had already announced that he was going to break the tie. Right.
In favor of it.
That's right. And by that time, Allen must have realized that every woman who had ever worked in politics, practically, was for the ERA. Every organization. The women who worked the system were for ERA. The ones who were against it, we never heard of them before or since. The woman who headed it up was a proud and avowed member of the John Birch Society. And they don't run politics in North Carolina. So, I think that it was very simple. Gordon Allen did not want to make Jimmy Hunt a hero. And again, he went over . . . I saw him go over to Deane, Charlie Deane and Kneel down and start talking to him on the floor. And then I saw Charlie put his head down and of course, what he was doing was telling him that he was going to change his vote.
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
[START OF TAPE 2, SIDE A]
. . . if I had been Charlie and I don't criticize Charlie, everybody has
to operate in his or her own way. But I would have
Well, was there any visible signs with Mullins, like you say the way that Gordon Allen went over and talked to Charlie Deane?
No, because you see, Mullins is a Republican and I tell you the truth, I don't know who was keeping up with the Republicans. Taylor was with us, Charles Taylor. He was the minority leader. I guess he still is. See, I had him marked "o.k." At any rate, I don't know, I can't say. I feel myself that if Allen had not . . . and you see, I think that Alford is the first name and Allen is the second, he's second name called and I question whether or not Mullins would have gotten up there and been the one to cause the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. But I think that Gordon's reasons are very, very simple. He has had an interest, so it is said, in running for governor. We all know that Jimmy Hunt is running for governor and it would have made Jimmy Hunt a hero.
Well, what will you do next time? In '75, differently?
Well, of course, we hope that there's a chance that it will be passed. I
don't know how many more legislatures that could pass it have it yet to
come up this year. I don't know, you know, I just haven't given that a
great deal of thought. I hope that the Caucus will send out next fall,
letters like we did, asking people to sign the return. Although, of
course, there's nothing you can do if they don't stick with it. I
suppose, you see, we didn't even start working until . . . we could have
been working on election day or the day after, as soon as we found out
who was elected. We didn't. Actually, it was a tactic to keep quiet
about it and we decided that the less that was said, the better. We did
not know whether Schafly would start her big assault in North Carolina,
although she had in Florida and other places that I knew about. Then we
couldn't. I suppose what we would do is just get going earlier.
Basically what causes a legislator to take a position on an issue is the
folks back home. And that's the way we worked, you know, the lobbying. I
wasn't calling those people, I was getting the home folks to call them
and write them. As a matter of fact a legislator from a coastal county
said that his mail had changed dramatically from con to pro, after we
started working. I guess that we would just start probably earlier. I
hope that not only a letter next fall, but that the women who are asked
to work for candidates will ascertain whether or not they favor the
Equal Rights Amendment before they work for them. In the fall
Well, with this in mind about getting the folks back home behind it, what efforts did the Women's Political Caucus make to inform the housewives and the woman of the lower socio-economic levels of the meaning of the ERA?
Well, most all of us are housewives. So, I don't know who you would call a housewife. You mean a housewife that isn't working?
I'm really stereotyping some of the people that came down anti-ERA.
Well, I'm a housewife and Betty Mc
Well, let me say just the lower socio-econimic levels, then. Maybe some of the not so well-educated.
Well, we have had on our policy council since the very beginning Pat
Lingler, who is head of women's activities for COPE and we had on the
board at that time, or on thepolicy council a woman who I believe is an
officer in the Meatcutter's Union. Elsie Hale from Fayetteville. And
then there was union that was working for us up in Asheville and they
wrote me, I can't remember the name of it, but they were awfully good
about it. So, we had the union workers. Of course, you don't ask the
welfare rights mother to take her money and make a long distance call to
the
Did you get any support from those areas? Did you talk to those people, did they say . . .
Well, they understand.
They did understand?
Well, I couldn't speak for the group as a whole, but the ones I know do.
And they weren't afraid of these things like being drafted, or having to go to the bathroom with men, or . . .
Are you talking about the low income people?
Yeah. Some of the people . . . it seems to me that there were a group of people that didn't really know what it was all about.
Well, that's true.
And this is where the emotional issue became involved.
That's true and that came from the preachers.
The fundamentalists.
That's right. The Bible Belt. Up in the mountains. I'm sure that the
mountain people were against it and probably the average person, and
that's quite low income. And it's very hard
It could have been Happiness of Women.
I believe that's it.
H.O.W.
That's right. They were all into the Catholic thing about how it was contrary to the wishes of the Mother of God and stuff like that. And it is thought by some people that some conservative elements in the Roman Catholic Church gave them money. I never . . . you know, I didn't see any formal activity on the part of the Roman Catholic Church down here.
Well, you have partially answered this one, but maybe you want to add. Is there anything else you could tell me about the political scene, as far as political deals going on? Trading of votes?
No, Julia Miller 18 would know more
about that. 18 Member of the Policy Council of North Carolina Women's
Political Caucus and Chairperson, ERA Ratification Council, a
coalition of women's groups.
To what extent do you think that legislators really understood the issues. Did they make an attempt to understand.
I think many of them were ill informed and we did our best to get them
informed. We tried to play even that low-key. Elizabeth Petersen, who is
a lawyer, and a woman who is at Duke, I believe she teaches medical law,
whe was on call, plus I believe a man from the Duke Law School, plus a
couple of lawyers in Raleigh. And we tried as best we could, but of
course you see that when we got there toward the end, we were working
under a terrible time bind. Because the referendum vote had nothing to
do with legality or what would happen, or anything else. But, in terms
of making personal appointments with people who seemed not to understand
and seemed to be willing to listen, we did the best we could with the
lawyers who were willing to go.
Governor Holshouser gave his verbal support. Did it make a difference and would active support on his part have made a difference?
Yeah, active support would have made a difference. I had it written down somewhere, but the Democrats came through better percentage-wise than the Republicans. A lot better. In the Senate. Because that's the only place we had to doubt. I didn't even bother to do the percentages on that eighty-two, thirty-six vote. I think it's in my ERA file. Well, at any rate, basically Grace was working on that end of it. We did ask his help and of course, he had made the statement, when he made he made his State of the Message, that he favored the Equal Rights Amendment. And then when he was asked if he was going to work for it, he said that no, he wasn't. He was going to work according to his priorities. Or some statement to that effect. However, I think it would have made a difference if we could have got to him a little sooner. We asked him . . . he was out of town just about the time of the vote. I think he went out on Monday and we made an attempt to get to him and to ask him to get to just two people. And I don't know whether he did or not, I doubt it.
Who were they?
I can't remember. Two Republican legislators, Senators. And where we felt that he could have some influence. And he was in Washington at some kind of meeting. I don't even know whether the message even got to him. But yes, it could have made a difference.
[END OF TAPE 2, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 2, SIDE B]
How would you assess Senator Ervin's political influence on the General Assembly?
He sent one letter to everyone. A mimeographed letter or some kind of
letter that was written mechanically. Saying, I believe, that
"a constituent of mine has asked me to do this." I
really started to write and ask him which constituent. And I believe
that he enclosed copies of his Congressional testimony, or something
from the Congressional Record. After that one letter, I never found his
tracks. I don't think he did much else. I don't think that he actually
lobbied. It's been the policy of the people in Congress to leave the
legislature alone. And although we had offers of support from some
people in Congress, they said that they would do what they could,
particularly some who had been in the General Assembly. But I don't
think that Ervin lobbied. He doesn't usually operate that way. He sent
the one letter. He may have contacted a few people, but he didn't do any
massive lobbying. Of course, everyone already knew that he
Naomi Morris.
Naomi Morris was against it. They probably did us more harm than Ervin. As I understand, Naomi Morris worked actively against it.
Well, I haven't come across her name in the newspaper accounts or anything. Do you know anything about her, where she's from?
Oh yes. She's from Wilson. She's a judge. And see, it's been the practice of people appointed to the Bench to stay out of the legislature's business, and out of active politics, so it is not exactly protocol for them to have messed in it. But it's my understanding that they did. Now, as I say, if Susie Sharp did much, she was very, very quiet about it.
I believe that Naomi Morris spoke at the February 8th hearing, didn't she?
There was one hearing when I was in Houston.
Or Winifred Wells, she's a judge too. It might have been her.
She's either a judge or a lawyer, I don't know which.
Well, she spoke anti. Maybe it wasn't Naomi Morris, then.
I don't know, because I was in Houston at that time, I wasn't there. If
you are there, you tend to remember, so I don't remember now. But I know
that those two, Morris and Sharp, did hurt
According to the newspaper accounts, you told women at the convention that the state was being deluged with outside money to fight the ERA. Where was this money coming from and what groups within the state were receiving it?
I'm not sure that I said that, or . . . I think that Betty Freidan said that.
Yeah, I know that she said it. Well, maybe you didn't say it and the newspaper account just credited you with the comment.
I said that . . . you know, we knew that it had happened in other states
and I may have said that we assumed that it was happening in here. I
don't know, I saw someone not long ago . . . in the first place, the
women reporters told us that their papers would not give them the time
and money to really try to investigate that, including big papers, The New York Times, the Post, and so
forth. I saw someone not too long ago, and I can't remember who it was,
that said that definite tie-ins had been made. Maybe in Oklahoma, where
Harragis operates. Now, I'm not saying that it was from Harragis, but it
wouldn't suprise me if he hadn't put money into it. But Schafly, they've
never been able to pin her down, and she spends a lot of money. Betty
Freidan went to Kentucky and found that women had been brought in and
put up at motels and so on to fight ERA. And of course, the question
was, where did the money come from? As I said, I saw someone not too
long ago who said that they had actually
What effect did Betty Freidan's appearance at the convention have on the Congressmen, if any?
I would think that probably it would be a net plus, although she said one thing that is not what you call good PR. That is, she said that if they don't vote for it, go out and beat them. I mean, you don't say that before you take a vote, you know, you don't threaten. But the reason that I say it was probably a net plus, is because I suspect that the women who heard her, went out and did more than they would have otherwise in terms of working for it and getting involved. But that's the only thing where she said something she shouldn't have.
What about Phyllis Schafly's appearance before the legislature, or her influence with the legislature?
Legislators tell me that, and lobbyists too, that people appearing at the
hearings don't change bills and don't change people's positions, that's
what they tell me, I don't know. It doesn't really make any difference
as far as the legislature goes. I suppose that if you had something
really dramatic to testify or something and it gets in the newspapers
and the constituents start
What was your opinion of the media coverage of the controversy?
Well, there were only a couple of papers that really were trying to do a good job and trying to help. The Asheville paper had an excellent editorial. I believe, and I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me . . . I get mixed up, there have been so many stories, but maybe the Durham paper wrote a good series about it.
The Charlotte Observer, I think, wrote a good
editorial.
Yeah, the Charlotte paper had a good editorial.
Well informed.
Yeah. But they didn't do anything like what other papers in the country
did. Well, I'm not talking about all other papers. They didn't do
anything like some good papers did in this country. I have something
here that I'll show you if you want to see it, from Seattle or somewhere
like that, where they did a whole supplement on the Equal Rights
Amendment, the history of women's sufferage, and possible ramifications
and so on and so forth. Why, the News and Observer
didn't even have a series. And I don't even think they were for it. They
backed into some kind of mealy mouthed editorial, but I think they could
have done a service, because there was so much misinformation and
misunderstanding. But, they didn't face it. As I say, those two had good
editorials, but the papers
In one newspaper, I believe it was the Wilmington paper, I noticed an article mentioning that the National Organization of Women fighting for lesbian rights, and it was very near an ERA article. Do you think that things like this had an effect on the issue.
Yes, I think it may have, but not because the . . . it was in the News and Observer right under, or right over an ERA
story. And what some benighted sould did was to cut out the NOW story
and xerox it and send a copy to every legislator. Of course, I think
that the juxtaposition hurt. I don't know if the person cut out both
stories or whether they just xeroxed the NOW story. Of course, if you
read the NOW story, you found out that it wasn't NOW as an organization,
but one workshop had come up recommending that the women's movement take
on the lesbian fight, or however it was. And of course, many men don't
know the difference between NOW and the Women's Political Caucus and so
on and so forth. So, I expect that the fact that it was sent too every
legislator may have done some damage, I don't know. Again, I would have
to question. It may have reinforced some negative positions, but whether
it would have changed anybody from plus to minus, I doubt it.
Do you think there is a real need for a constitutional
I'm not much for symbols. It's needed because the constitution of the United States is not applied to women, who remain special categories of persons under the fourteenth amendment. I don't care about the symbols, I want equality under the law.
The last question. What kind of support or involvement came from the following: college campuses, black women, men other than legislators?
One thing that we could have done that we didn't do, and we really did
have some men working for us, was to do what I think they've done in
Florida now. They have a whole men's committee for ERA chaired by some
man that is well known. And we should have done that. We had support
from men and such as the Asheville paper with their good editorial and
as I said, some Congressmen and certainly some of the men legislators
were awfully good in working for it. Helpful. But we should have asked
some men to form a committee, that would have been very helpful, I
think. And we just didn't . . . well, as I told you, we were lying low
and then, we just didn't have much time. College campuses . . . no, not
much. Obviously, there are political activists on campuses, women and
men. But the ones who are politically active are the ones whose families
have been in the political system, or who have got interested in some
way, and they always help. There was the daughter of a legislator at
And black women?
We had the Caucus women, who were part of the telephone network. Alfreda
Webb was working for us, Elizabeth Cofield * was trying to help us in Raleigh . . . * Member, Wake County Board of Commissioners and Charter member
of the North Carolina Women's Political Caucus.
[END OF TAPE 2, SIDE B]
[START OF TAPE 3, SIDE A]
Would you, you may not want to, describe the typical pro-ERA woman, in terms of socio-economic level, marital status, children, educational level, job status, could you?
I think it's a mixture. You know, most of the women are middle class, because they are the people who have either the money or the freedom plus having had the background in terms of being educated on the issue and so forth, to get into it. We had people all the way from grandmothers to teen-agers who were for it.
Well, what about the anti-woman?
I really don't . . . I don't know this woman from Reidsville.
Dorothy Slade.
Yeah, I don't know her. I just know that she's a Birch Society woman. I think that probably the people who are fundamentalist in terms of religion would compose aflarge part of the people who were against it, I mean, you know, about the whole thing that a woman's place is in the home and a woman is subject to her husband and all the stuff like that. And of course, I think that there were some whose fears were aroused by the women who were working against it. I think that they had a fear that they might indeed lose some privileges, not knowing that you really don't have any. But the only legitimate one, you can say, is the draft.
Were any of the pro-ERA women ever . . . was this a conscious fear with them at all? Did any of them every candidly admit that "well, gee, we might be drafted." Was this ever a question?
No, never. They say, "Well, we'll take that. That's part of it. We want the duties as well as the responsibilities of citizenship."
Could you see any support coming from geographical section of the state than from any other? Maybe urban centers would offer more support.
I think that's right. The Piedmont of North Carolina is generally better
informed, the communication is better, the newspapers
After the defeat, why did pro-ERA people object to the proposed state constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights.
Because they had some kind of darling qualifying phrase on there . . . "except for everything that's already in the law . . . " That was just a sop, you know, thrown out by people who got scared that they wouldn't get the support from the women that they had had before.
Where was the action of the North Carolina Woman's Political Caucus and other pro-ERA groups channeled after the defeat.
We just played it into the woodwork. We were all exhausted. It took up
money, although we raised about two thousand, we spent more than that,
and it took upmoney that we really needed for other things. Not that we
resented it, we didn't at all, but you know, it knocked a hole in our
Caucus budget and it really kept us from going whole-hog. I think for
example, if we hadn't had to spend the money on ERA, by this time we
would have had a half-time executive director. We had enough money, you
know, to do that. We figured that we would have to have a certain amount
of money before we could really get started, but that just knocked a
hole in our plans. We just went back to our other priorities. We have
worked some on legislation
END OF INTERVIEW