Author Barbara F. Berenson joins us this week to discuss her book Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement: Revolutionary Reformers. She’s also the author of Boston in the Civil War: Hub of the Second Revolution, and Walking Tours of Civil War Boston: Hub of Abolitionism. In the interview, she tells us about the critical roles that Massachusetts women played in the fight for women’s right to vote and step fully into the public sphere.
Well Done, Sister Suffragist
Barbara F. Berenson is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who retired from her position as Senior Attorney at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in June 2019. In addition to researching and writing, she serves on the Boards of Boston By Foot and the Royall House & Slave Quarters.
More resources about the centennial of suffrage:
- A companion site for the book.
- Massachusetts and the 19th Amendment, from the National Park Service.
- The city of Boston’s suffrage centennial portal.
- A compendium of Massachusetts resources and events.
Upcoming Event
On Thursday, January 30, author Christina Wolbrecht will be appearing at the Boston Athenaeum to discuss her book A Century of Votes for Women: American Elections Since Suffrage. Here’s how the Athenaeum describes the event:
How have American women voted in the first 100 years since the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment? How have popular understandings of women as voters both persisted and changed over time? In A Century of Votes for Women, Christina Wolbrecht and J. Kevin Corder offer an unprecedented account of women voters in American politics over the last ten decades. Bringing together new and existing data, the book provides unique insight into women’s (and men’s) voting behavior and traces how women’s turnout and vote choice evolved across a century of enormous transformation overall and for women in particular. Wolbrecht and Corder show that there is no such thing as ‘the woman voter’; instead they reveal considerable variation in how different groups of women voted in response to changing political, social, and economic realities. The book also demonstrates how assumptions about women as voters influenced politicians, the press, and scholars.
Christina Wolbrecht is professor of political science, director of the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy, and Mr. and Mrs. C. Robert Hanley Director of the Washington Program at the University of Notre Dame. She is the author of A Century of Votes for Women: American Elections Since Suffrage (with J. Kevin Corder), Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters from Suffrage Through the New Deal (with Corder), and The Politics of Women’s Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change, as well as articles on women as political role models, the representation of women, and party positions on education policy.
The talk begins at 6:00pm, and advanced registration is required. It’s free for Athenaeum members and $15 for non-members.
Transcript
Music
Nikki Intro:
[0:04] Welcome to Hump History, where we go beyond the Freedom Trail to share our favorite stories from the history of Boston. The Hub of the Universe.
This is Episode 1 68 Well done, Sister Suffragist.
Hi, I’m Nikki. This week we’re sitting down with author and historian Barbara F. Berenson to discuss her book, Massachusetts in the Woman’s Suffrage Movement. Revolutionary Reformers.
In addition, she’s penned Boston in the Civil War, hub of the Second Revolution and walking tours of Civil War, Boston Hub of abolitionism.
In our chat, we’ll dig into the critical roles that Massachusetts women played in the fight for women’s right to vote and step fully into the public sphere.
Because we have an author interview, I’m skipping the Boston Book Club.
But before we talk to Barbara, it’s time for this week’s upcoming historical event.
[0:58] This week we’re featuring a talk at the Boston Athenaeum. A Century of votes for women, American elections since suffrage with Kristina Will Brecht.
The event is described as such.
How have American women voted in the 1st 100 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment?
How have popular understandings of women as voters both persisted and changed over time.
In a century of votes for women. Kristina Wall, Brecht and J. Kevin Quarter offer an unprecedented account of women voters in American politics over the last 10 decades, bringing together new and existing data.
The book provides unique insight into women’s and men’s voting behavior and traces how women’s turn out and vote choice evolved over a century of enormous transformation overall and for women in particular,
well wrecked in quarter show that there is no such thing as the woman voter.
Instead, they reveal considerable variation and how different groups of women voted in response to changing political, social and economic realities.
The book also demonstrates how assumptions about women as voters influenced politicians, the press and scholars.
[2:12] Kristina Will Obrecht is professor of political science, director of the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy and Mr and Mrs C. Robert Hanley, director of the Washington program at the University of Notre Dame.
She is the author of A Century of Votes for Women. American Elections since Suffrage, with J.
Kevin Quarter counting women’s ballots, female votes from suffrage through the New Deal, also with quarter,
and the politics of Women’s Rights Party’s positions and change, as well as articles on women and political role models, the representation of women and party positions on education policy.
The event will be held on Thursday, January 30th from 6 to 7 p.m. And registration is required.
The event is free for members and $15 for non members will include a link to register in this week’s show. Notes.
I want to take a moment to thank our patri on sponsors who support enables us to invest in the technology needed to produce weekly episodes.
To become a supporter, you can learn more at patriot dot com slash hub history.
And now it’s time for this week’s main event. Barbara F. Berenson is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who recently retired from her position. A senior attorney at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
In addition to researching and writing, she serves on the boards of Boston by foot and the Royal House and Slave Quarters.
Nikki:
[3:40] Barbara Berenson. Welcome to the show. Can you kick things off with an introduction and just tell us about your background and you know the journey that led to your interest in the role of Massachusetts in the women’s suffrage movement?
Barbara:
[3:54] Absolutely. It’s actually somewhat of a long journey. My professional background is as a lawyer, and up until this past summer, I worked for about 30 years as a lawyer, primarily in government.
But I’ve always had a long standing interest in history and in particular ah, fascination with the richness of Massachusetts history.
Um, and this book was a result of several different things, including my working with two judges on a book I co edited called Breaking Barriers.
The Unfinished Story of Women Lawyers and Judges in Massachusetts, which, of course, focused on the role of women in Massachusetts history on dhe focused in particular on lawyers and judges.
In addition, my first foray into history, writing about five years ago was writing a book on some of Boston’s abolitionists.
And, of course, the women’s rights movement grew directly out of Massachusetts is leading role in the anti slavery movement.
So these two different threads of my life came together, and I decided to take a deep dive into the woman’s suffrage movement. In general and in particular, a focus of Massachusetts is leading role in the movement.
Nikki:
[5:00] Wonderful. So before we get too far along, I wanna touch on terminology.
So when you get into this in the book as well, so the first thing is that we will be referring to suffragists instead of suffragettes for us. Mary Poppins fans. Um, is that correct?
Barbara:
[5:19] That is correct on dhe. Yes, Sister suffered yet the Mary Poppins. Sawing is absolutely wonderful.
Nikki:
[5:24] It’s my favorite song.
Barbara:
[5:26] It is a great song. And the term Suffer jet was originally coined as a derogatory term by some members of the United Kingdom Press,
to refer to the more militant members of the British suffragist movement.
And they decided to adopt that initially derisive term as a moniker in the United States.
The suffrage activists continue to use the term suffragist throughout.
So when we’re talking about Americans, we talk about suffragists. Whether they were more or less militant.
Nikki:
[6:02] And we’ll also say woman suffrage instead of women’s suffrage to stay true to their words.
Barbara:
[6:07] Right, that’s correct. One of the things I had to decide when I was writing my book was whether to use woman or women’s suffrage.
Both are completely correct, and there is certainly no reason why one must use one or the other.
I chose, as you just indicated, to use the term woman suffrage movement, because that is how the participants themselves refer to it.
Nikki:
[6:30] Great. So you mentioned this a little bit in your introduction, and I think this is maybe a good place to start the conversation So our listeners will know that Massachusetts played a very active role in the abolition movement.
So can you give a little bit of background on the relationship between the abolition and the woman’s suffrage movements?
Barbara:
[6:51] Yes, there’s a number of different relationships, but the most critical one is this.
When the abolitionist movement began and, of course, Massachusetts was a leading centre nationally, in large part because William Lloyd Garrison established The Liberator newspaper in Boston 18 31,
he invited woman as well as men and also blacks as well as whites to join him in the anti slavery struggle.
And the woman attempted to do so and speak out against slavery.
They were immediately told that they had no right to play any kind of role in the political movement, that they should be confined holy to the domestic sphere, the sphere of home taking care of the husband, the Children, the house and so forth.
Nikki:
[7:35] It’s interesting to me when I think about it, because when I read about the logic of the time, you know about how women just naturally were more fragile and and how the less,
firm intellect, But yet they were considered morally superior to men.
But yet moral superiority didn’t belong in politics or in the public sphere.
Take your compassion and go home.
Barbara:
[8:01] Right. They were considered that their moral superiority played two roles, one, of course, with shaping future citizens.
So it was very important to have a morally upright and competent mother because she would be raising sons as well as daughters.
Um, and the other thing was that woman were supposed to be content with the role of influencer, that they could bring their interest in morality and so forth to bear,
if accepted by their husband on them by expressing moral viewpoints.
And of course, in that era, politics were rough and dirty.
Not that that’s so different necessarily from today. But when you see cartoons of polling places and so forth, and so that’s just emphasize the fact that moral woman did not belong in that sphere.
Nikki:
[8:49] I think a really great example here is Abigail Adams as somebody who, you know, raised future leaders and then also certainly influenced her husband.
But yet probably herself couldn’t even imagine a framework in which woman suffrage would be possible.
Barbara:
[9:06] I think that’s absolutely true. One of the things I had to think about and I was limited by my publisher to writing a relatively short book that would be successful with the general reader,
is I gave Abigail Adams rather short shrift, even though she is one of my favorite people in American history.
Because, of course, although she wrote her private letter to John urging him to remember the ladies in the new code of laws that would be written.
She herself did not advocate publicly for women’s rights or begin a movement, but certainly the letter that she wrote.
And there were a number of other woman in history who made similar points in letters and pamphlets and so forth expressing their dissatisfaction with the limits.
But it’s really in the abolitionist era. That’s something that we would recognise today as a social movement begins to be formed.
Nikki:
[9:57] Now, I suppose it’s hard to pinpoint when any particular social movement begins. However, I did learn in school, but it began at Seneca Falls in 18 48.
And in the book, you place a greater importance on the Worcester Convention in 18 50. So can you tell us a little bit about what happened at Seneca Falls and then what happened in Worcester?
Barbara:
[10:20] Absolutely So. What you learned, of course, about Seneca Falls in 18 48 which is also what I learned. And most people still learn reflects the power of what we would call today.
The dominant narrative and one of the goals in my book was too.
[10:36] Look closely at that dominant narrative and discuss where it falls short in terms of the true history.
So the first place in which I think it falls short is the beginning of the movement, because one of the things we all learned in school was that the woman’s rights movement begins at Seneca Falls.
And so one of the first things I explain which alludes to what we just discussed is that really discussions about women’s rights began about a decade earlier, during the early years of the anti slavery movement.
And it was those discussions that lead, ultimately to the Seneca Falls convention in 18 48.
Seneca Falls was a very important moment in history.
It was the first time when a group of woman and some men came together to discuss at a convention the subject of women’s rights, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton famously drafted her declaration of sentiments,
in which she listed using the American Declaration of Independence, is a model,
many wrongs done to woman by a male dominated society and made a claim for equal rights, including equal pay, education, access to the professions and, of course, the right to vote.
[11:44] So it was a very important moment. Its limit, however, was twofold. First of all, it was local.
When Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott and several other woman in Seneca Falls decided to announce and hold this convention.
They gave 10 days notice in the local press, so people came together locally, although, as they said, it was very important.
There also was no follow up. People came together. They talked, and then they went home.
And that question, of course, is how does one begin a sustained movement?
[12:18] So two years later, in 18 50 Lucy Stone,
Abby, Kelly Foster and a number of other local area abolitionists decided that the time was ripe to call together what they called the first National Woman’s rights convention,
and they held it in Wister.
They gave six months notice. They tried very hard to get a woman from any of the northern states.
I say Northern because the Southern states that were busy defending slavery were certainly not interested in women’s rights and certainly not interested in a woman’s rights movement organized by anti slavery activist,
End before this first convention was going to end that they would appoint committees and make plans for a second convention to be held,
and the goal was to have annual conventions and begin gradually to build a sustaining movement.
Nikki:
[13:14] So the Worcester Convention takes place in 18 50. And then there is follow up and, you know, movement is building in the coming years.
But also as a country, you know, we’re moving closer and closer to the Civil War. And abolition, I think, is really the issue at the forefront for most folks.
Now you include in the book a quote from Clara Barton, and she remarked that the Civil War advanced women at least 50 years beyond the normal position which continued peace would have assigned her.
So how did the civil War, you know, change the construct of the public and the private sphere for women?
Barbara:
[13:55] That’s a great question. So, first of all, yes, the 18 fifties were a decade of advanced for woman because conventions were held every single year except for 18 57 when there was an economic depression.
But otherwise every year, from 18 52 18 60 there was a national Woman’s rights convention.
The 2nd 1 was also held in Massachusetts in 18 51 and then they began to move around to other northern states.
So the woman’s rights movement was still small. But it was growing throughout the 18 fifties.
But as you pointed out, that is also the decade that brought the nation closer to civil war over the issue of slavery.
And, of course, war broke out in the spring of 18 61.
[14:36] Clara Barton’s comment might be slightly exaggerated, but what she meant by that, I think, is what we’ve typically seen historically,
Ah, for woman in war time in this country, whether you think Rosie the Riveter or in any other context, and that is that war time.
Because men become occupied, fighting provides other opportunities for woman.
So during the Civil War, woman were able, for example, to manage homes and farms and businesses while their husbands or fathers or brothers your sons were away fighting.
They gained many new skills. That way.
Woman entered new occupations particularly most fundamentally.
The occupation of nursing during the Civil War, which brought them into contact with men took them out of the home, gained that much respect.
In addition, woman came together in all sorts of society’s sometimes called sanitary societies, where they gathered provisions to send two soldiers in the field or in hospitals on also made their own provisions, knitting and so forth,
socks and blankets and so forth.
[15:43] And those coming together is a woman working together where the genesis of what becomes the woman’s club movement after the Civil War.
So the Civil War, destructive as it waas in terms of loss of life and so forth not only brought, of course the end of slavery, but also did bring,
new opportunities for woman and left them poised to be able to better advocate for their own rights. In the years after the war.
Nikki:
[16:13] Now leading up to the war. It seems that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone are really the the three women who are working together very much in concert and who are going to take this movement forward.
But after the war, a divide really opens up between them. It becomes quite significant, actually causes a schism, really across the movement.
So can you talk a little bit about that divide and what caused it?
Barbara:
[16:43] So everything you say is exactly right. During the 18 fifties, Lucy Stone of Massachusetts, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was from upstate New York and was living in Seneca Falls, and Susan B.
Anthony, who was born here in Massachusetts but had grown up in Rochester, New York, became the trio leading the woman’s rights movement.
Lucy Stone got her start in the late 18 forties after graduating from Overland College.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, of course, was a leader of Seneca Falls, and Susan B. Anthony attends her first woman’s rights convention in 18 52 and the three our friends and allies Working together.
Strain develops among them at the end of the Civil War over the 14th and 15th Amendments,
and the issue presented by those amendments for these women’s rights advocates was that over access to the ballot and to focus in particular on the 15th Amendment, which posed the issue most starkly.
The 15th Amendment, of course, grants the right to vote to men regardless of race.
And these women rights advocates and their allies had very much hoped that instead of that being the amendment, the amendment would instead have granted universal suffrage, which was the term they used to describe the right to vote,
regardless of race and regardless of gender.
[18:03] And when woman were left out of the 15th Amendment, a schism occurred in the movement because Lucy Stone, although bitterly disappointed that woman were left out of the 15th Amendment, nevertheless pledged to support it,
saying that it was best if anybody could get out of the terrible pit of disenfranchisement.
So she pledged to support the 15th Amendment while continuing to advocate for women’s suffrage.
Anthony and Stanton, however, took a different approach. And that is, they refused to support the 15th Amendment because woman were left out.
And in addition to refusing to support the 15th Amendment, they criticized it in terms that can only be described as extraordinarily racist.
They, in other words, said that if anybody were entitled and deserving of the right to vote ahead of any other group, that certainly white educated woman should have precedence over uneducated black man.
Nikki:
[19:01] Which is certainly something that I didn’t learn in school.
Barbara:
[19:04] I think that is true, and the reason for that and something I discussed quite extensively in the book is that this so called dominant narrative of the woman’s suffrage movement really reflects the history as It was written by Susan B.
Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who wrote their own history of the early decades of the woman’s rights movement during the years of schism.
And in doing so, they did several things, which included minimizing or in some cases almost erasing, the role of Lucy Stone.
They also elevated the role of the Seneca Falls Convention over, for example, the Wister convention, and they also minimized their own role.
There are racial, uh, statements in the schism that divided the movement into.
Nikki:
[19:52] Now, before this divide over the 15th Amendment opened up, Um, I know at least Susan B.
Anthony and I think maybe Elizabeth Katie stand as well did enjoy a friendship and, you know, close ally ship with Frederick Douglass.
And so how how did this divide impact that relationship?
Barbara:
[20:12] Well, they certainly had all enjoyed close friendship with Frederick Douglass.
Frederick Douglass, once he self emancipated himself in slavery, very quickly emerged as a leading abolitionist in the country and also a supporter of women’s rights.
So Frederick Douglass, for example, was one of the small number of men in attendance at Seneca Falls and was a supporter of women’s rights throughout the 18 fifties.
He said, however, after the Civil War, that the right to vote for African American men had to have precedence.
So he supported the 15th Amendment that caused strain with Anthony and Stanton, and Douglas very explicitly took issue with the racist comments that they made, so there was a period of great strain.
But Frederick Douglass was also a politician, as were Anthony and Stanton, and later on they did reconcile.
Um, the reconciliation certainly was a public one. How they felt in their hearts is something I’m really not equipped to answer.
Nikki:
[21:17] You know when I read the comments that Anthony and Katie stand made vs Frederick Douglass.
It’s unfortunate to me, of course, that this divide opens up and, you know, identities air pitted against each other.
But I think what’s important is that from Frederick Douglass’s comments, I think what he felt was that for black men, the right to vote was a matter of life and death.
That it really was critical for survival.
And he never disparaged women, and he never disparaged white women.
But, um, for Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady stand, they certainly took a more underhanded approach.
And they were actually, um, egregiously, you know, putting forth racist arguments and in aligning themselves with racist benefactors, Um, it does seem like maybe they took the low road.
Barbara:
[22:14] I think that’s very true. And I have to say as much as I was somewhat familiar with their behavior before I begin doing my research.
When I really read the articles they published in the newspaper, they briefly ran from about 18 68 to 18 70.
They’re racist comments. Even I was shocked by the darkness of them.
So, yes, they certainly took the low road. And there’s still a debate among historians over how much they believed these sentiments.
It’s hard to imagine they expressed them without leaving them, Um, but I think that they have been so shocking to so many people.
[22:55] One explanation that sometimes has been offered, which I have found it leads to somewhat persuasive incoming rips with it is to distinguish the backgrounds and how they arrived in the movement. To some extent.
Lucy Stone versus Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
And that is Lucy Stone entered the woman’s rights movement entirely through the abolitionist movement, so she took racial equality very seriously.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony both got their initial start in the temperance movement, which was another movement that grew out of the reform era in the 18 thirties.
And that, of course, was a movement initially to restrict and then ultimately turns into the Prohibition movement.
Ah, movement to eliminate alcohol.
And certainly Anthony and Stanton did embrace the anti slavery movement also and were active in it.
But it’s some level. I think, that their hearts were not quite as connected to the notion of racial equality as was Lizzie Stones.
Nikki:
[24:03] So the leadership of the woman’s suffrage movement is pretty homogeneous. I mean, it’s really white upper, maybe middle class Protestant women.
I think Sojourner Truth is probably the most widely known black female suffragist. And so how did she navigate this divide?
Barbara:
[24:25] That’s a great question, s Oh, yes, it is particularly early on, or at least even throughout most of the 19th century.
The leadership of the woman’s suffrage movement is largely white, native born, literate, Protestant woman.
But there are always a few exceptions and always just a little bit of diversity in the movement.
And Sojourner Truth was one of the African American woman who first cast her lot with women’s rights on, and she attends the 18 50 convention in Wister.
She gives her famous speech that if we often refer to as the anti a woman’s speech at a local convention actually held in Ohio in 18 51,
and after the Civil War, when the schism took place, truth, for her part, tried hard to avoid,
becoming entangled in the rivalry between the Lucy Stone led American Woman Suffrage Association and the Stanton and Anthony Lead National Woman’s Suffrage Association for her lead biographer, says the truth.
Loyalty came finally to rest with the American Woman Suffrage Association.
Nikki:
[25:35] This is a good time to, I think, transition to the aws say, in the end of the U. S. A.
The leaders of the respective organizations. You know, I think we’re faced with a really difficult task of navigating lots of injustices that women faced. You know, property laws, marriage laws, divorce laws.
Um, all you know, women were really left at the mercy of the men in their lives. And so how did the aws, eh? And the end of us a balance. Those competing priorities against women’s suffrage.
Barbara:
[26:08] So that’s a great question. Because, of course, when we talked about the conventions before the Civil War, the convention of the 18 fifties, there was a pretty broad platform articulated for women’s rights across the board.
After the Civil War, the focus really became the ballot. And, of course, that’s why we had the discussions over the 15th Amendment.
And after that, both the American Woman Suffrage Association and the National Woman’s Suffrage Association do come to focus. Their fundamental efforts on the ballot are for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it was the most common denominator.
The vote. It was something that people could easily grasp and understand.
And secondly, there was a belief that once you had the vote, you would the end be able to exercise it and grant yourself all other rights.
So, in other words, the vote is the entry point, and once you have it and democratic society, that’s the right that allows you to then seek out other rights.
However, Lucy Stone and the American Woman Suffrage Association articulated much more clearly that their fundamental goal was suffrage.
Early on, the Stanton and Anthony lead National Woman Suffrage Association did articulate a broader platform were pretty quickly under the leadership of Susan B. Anthony.
She did seek to make that organization also ah, focus on the right to vote.
Nikki:
[27:36] So this divide opens up and really persists for about 20 years.
So can you tell us? You know what? What progress is made during those years? And how do these two groups and these three women eventually come back together?
Barbara:
[27:53] So during the next. Those 20 years of schism 18 70 to 80 90 were generally pretty difficult years for the subject of women’s rights.
And one of the things that makes studying we’re discussing the woman’s suffrage movement. Challenging is you always have to think about what else was going on in American history.
So we already this discussed, for example, the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, the struggle over voting rights.
And now we have to think about where the country was during 18 70 to 80 90,
and the Civil War pretty quickly And reconstruction give way to the Gilded Age, an era of industrialization, immigration, big fortunes and, in general and era of conservativism.
That would not be good for reform movements in general, and therefore certainly not good for women’s rights.
That was a tough error for progress.
The American Woman Suffrage Association under Lucy Stone waged a series of state campaigns to try to enfranchise woman in states.
They had a state based strategy believing that the only way to ultimately succeed and get a federal amendment,
what would be first were woman to become enfranchised under state constitutions in a number of states and then eventually a critical number of senators and congressmen would be beholden to women voters,
and would then be able to be persuaded to support a federal amendment.
[29:20] So that was their strategy. Um, and there was some limited success in that Wyoming territory in Franchise Woman in 18 70 then continued enfranchisement when it became a state in 18 90 Utah territory.
Enfranchised woman on an ultimately woman in Utah. Work also enfranchise when it was a state, uh, municipal suffrage, which was stuff Ergin City in town. Elections prevailed in Kansas.
And then, in the early 18 nineties, Colorado on Idaho, our franchise woman. So you saw some small successes of a state based strategy.
[29:55] The National Woman’s Suffrage Association. The Anthony and Stanton organization,
initially used an argument that they tried to persuade the courts to accept,
that the 14th Amendment, which granted the privileges of immunities, a citizenship chew all inhabitants, could somehow be read to enfranchise woman,
and using that thought, which they call the new departure, a number of woman led by Susan B.
Anthony actually showed up at polling places in 18 72 on either were able to or attempted to cast their ballots.
But the Supreme Court, uh, refused to permit the 14th Amendment to be used as a device to enfranchise woman in a Supreme Court case.
And after that, Susan B. Anthony does, with Katie Stanton essentially adopt a strategy that is quite similar to that of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
Nikki:
[30:54] So, given that the woman’s suffrage movement really had its birth in the Northeast, why is it that the states that enfranchise women first were in the West?
Barbara:
[31:06] So this a couple? Two reasons. You first have to ask, Why not the Northeast?
And then you have to ask why the West in terms of why not the Northeast that gets right back to the Gilded Age and the fact that an era of reform quickly gives way to a new era of conservativism.
So these woman in the Northeast to support a woman’s rights had all been members of the Republican Party.
I mean, they weren’t obviously allowed to vote, but their sympathies all lay with the Republican Party, the party of the anti slavery movement, the party of Abraham Lincoln.
[31:39] And in the years after the Civil War in the Northeast, the Republican Party shifts to be becoming the party of wealth conservativism, big business owners of factories on and so forth.
So they’re not supported of a reform like women’s rights.
Meanwhile, the Northern Democratic Party, which was the party of the working man and is the party that embraces new immigrants and so forth, also is in support of a woman’s rights.
First of all, they associate the topic with the Republican Party, their opponents politically and second, these new immigrant populations, whether they were Irish, Catholic, Italian, Catholic, Eastern European, Jew,
and so forth generally came from traditional and patriarchal societies.
And we’re not interested in a reform like woman’s rights.
So there really wasn’t support for in these Northeastern states, despite the fact that that’s where the movement had been born.
[32:38] The Western states and contrast were pioneer societies.
They wanted to encourage women to come and settle. They didn’t have conservative institutions like banks and universities.
They didn’t have big fortunes, and they were generally more amenable to a spirit of reform.
So it’s really no accident, but often surprises people very much to learn that even though the woman’s suffrage movement was born in the Northeast, it actually take roots, uh, in the Western states in the country.
Nikki:
[33:13] Before we move really forward into the 20th century.
I do. When I go back for a question, um, t introduce a colorful character, I would say,
the women who were at the front of this movement certainly knew that they would face lots of scrutiny in their personal lives.
For them, you know, the choice to marry, to have Children, even how they dress.
All of those things have the potential for a political backlash.
You know, you mentioned in the book. There is a time when Lucy Stone wore bloomers to a convention, but she actually had to change her outfit because it was so distracting from the message.
So I want to talk about Victoria Woodhall.
She may have been the most polarizing figure. Can you introduce her to our listeners?
Barbara:
[34:04] Certainly so. Victoria Woodhall is indeed fascinating,
because she was actually a fortune teller and a spiritualist who somehow was able to become a wealthy stockbroker in New York with the assistance of a railroad tycoon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, who,
supposedly actually had an extra marital affair with Victoria.
Would Hall’s sister, Victoria Woodhall, on his sister, founded in newspaper?
And we’re able to parlay their connections into wood halls, being permitted to testify in support of women’s suffrage before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D. C. In 18 71?
And what a haul made the argument that I mentioned before that the 14th Amendment had implicitly enfranchised woman by granting them their privileges. Name, unities of citizenship.
[34:58] Mom says she was in the forefront of that. However.
Accusations of sexual scandal soon surrounded Woodhall because she was married, and she and her husband shared their home with her own ex husband, who was disabled.
And she herself supported what she called sexual self determination, which meant the right of a woman to love whoever she wants,
whenever she wants, which, of course, sounds so common sensical Tow us today.
But during the Victoria era, woman were certainly not supposed to publicly acknowledge any kind of sexual feelings, and she was condemned for her actions.
And when that happened, she struck back at many who had condemned her, which included Reverend Harriet Ward Beecher, who would so happened was the president of the American Woman Suffrage Association.
I should just say that the American Woman Suffrage Association was committed to having among its leaders, both men and woman.
[36:04] And that led to her accusations of Beecher Thio a scandal, a scandalous try A ll.
Ultimately, it really harmed the woman’s suffrage movement.
And within relatively short order, Anthony banished Woodhall on.
And that’s when Anthony really took very tight control of the National Woman’s Suffrage Association, as all this was going on.
And one of the ways in which many people are familiar with Wood Hall’s name is that although she was only 34 years old and, of course a woman, she declared herself a candidate for the U.
S. Presidency in November 18 72 although her name did that not actually appear on the ballot in any state.
Lucy Stone, for her part, felt that the publicity’s e associated with Victoria Woodhall very much harmed the woman’s suffrage movement.
Nikki:
[37:00] So than moving back toward, you know, the end of the 19th century. How did the, uh, the N w s a and the aws a come back together?
Barbara:
[37:11] So they officially merged, informed one organization called the National American Woman Suffrage Association in 18 90.
And it happened, Really, because of the second generation of suffragists by the time we’re close to the end of the 19th century.
Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and other members of that first generation some have died and the rest are relatively elderly and is now a whole second generation of suffragists, which includes in their number,
Alice John Blackwell, the daughter of Lucy Stone and her husband, Henry Blackwell.
[37:48] And the members of the second generation basically said to their elders that here we are almost at the end of the 19th century, Woman are only able to vote in a couple of states. In the West, there was a very long way to go.
Younger woman do not understand why there were two suffrage organizations.
The 15th Amendment has now been in the Constitution for 20 years, and it’s time to come back together to reconcile and to form one national organization going forward.
And it took some pushing and prodding. But they were able to persuade Stanton, Anthony and Stone to reconcile and form one suffrage Association.
Susan B. Anthony takes over that association quite quickly because Elizabeth Katie, standin who never really cares for running organization, goes off to England to live with her daughter for a period of time.
And Lucy Stone chooses to stay in Massachusetts and continue to edit the woman’s Journal newspaper that she had established in 18 70 which was the nation’s leading woman’s suffrage journal,
on Lucy Stone, sadly dies just a few years later of cancer in 18 93.
Nikki:
[39:01] So you mentioned Lucy Stone and Elizabeth Katie, Stan, um, having Children?
And I believe that Susan B. Anthony did not. I believe that she didn’t marry, Um, which again? You know, a very political choice for all of these women.
So how did the first and you know, even the second generation of suffragists balance having families? And you know, their role in the public sphere is well.
Barbara:
[39:30] That’s, of course, another excellent question, and the answer is that they were all over the map.
So just as you said, Susan B. Anthony never marries.
Never has Children remain single as certain points.
At least in part. Private correspondence is frustrated when some of her colleagues go off and marry and have Children because she worries about their ability to dedicate adequate time and effort and energy to the movement.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton had several Children even before 18 48 and the Seneca Falls Convention.
She ultimately has seven Children, and during the 18 fifties in particular, she participates in that decade of conventions, primarily long distance by sending very powerfully written letters.
Lucy Stone had pledged to never marry, but she does ultimately marry Henry Are Brown Blackwell in 18 55,
11 of my very favorite documents is a marriage protest that the two of them right in conjunction with a marriage in 18 55,
in which they agree to be married under the laws of Massachusetts but then write this protest, explaining the many ways which they disagree with the marital laws,
that essentially stripped the woman of any rights that she did have as a single woman.
[40:51] And Lucy Stone and her husband have one child, a daughter, in 18 57.
Alice Stone Blackwell herself never marries. She becomes a leader in the woman’s suffrage movement, and she succeeds her parents as editor of the Woman’s Journal.
[41:08] And even after 1920 when the 19th Amendment is ratified, I was still, Blackwell continues an active career as a reformer.
And so those three examples, you know, almost in some ways stand in.
But the great diversity off lives and lifestyles of woman in the suffrage movement.
Some of them were single. Some of them lived with other woman.
Some of them had supportive husbands. Some of them were widows. I mean, they were really all over the map.
Nikki:
[41:41] Now, as we turn into the 20th century, you and I know looking back that ratification is insights at this point.
So how do the strategies and the tactics of the movement, you know, change after 1900 what is it that kind of brings us to success?
Barbara:
[42:03] So, yes, an awful lot of things happen after 19 hundreds, since we have success just 20 years later, even though with the turn of the century woman have been enfranchised in such a small number of states.
And again, I think this is one of the places where you have to again think about what else is going on in American history.
And the Gilded Age gives way to an era that we now call the progressive era.
An era of reform in the early decades of the 20th century and a reform era would again proved to be a good era for women’s rights.
So the fact that there was a general reform ethics in the air was very important.
Also, there were many other changes that heard and women’s lives in the later part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century.
So, for example, um, Woman had new access to higher education, More schools had opened that were co educational as well as a number of women’s colleges.
So there was a cadre of young, well educated woman that was very important.
[43:05] Certain new inventions think about the telephone, the typewriter and so forth lead woman to have the ability to have new jobs. There was a demand for some woman to join the workforce.
There were also many women working in factories.
The bicycle. Lucy Stone. Excuse me, Susan B.
Anthony at one point famously said that she felt that the bicycle, which became very popular in the 18 nineties, had done more to emancipate woman than any other single thing,
because the bicycle gave woman independence the ability to get around on their own and lead to clothing reforms.
So there were a whole host of things that were going on, and they come together in the earliest 20th century.
And a number of woman, a young woman, college educated, woman working class woman,
decide to become involved with the woman’s suffrage movement, and they bring new membership, new energy and your tactics to the movement, which paved the way for ultimate success.
Nikki:
[44:05] So who are some of the local women who are active in the movement at that time?
Barbara:
[44:09] They were in number. One of my very favorites is a woman named Mod Would Park, and she went to Radcliffe, graduating in 18 98.
And she was disappointed with the small number of college educated woman who seemed to care about women’s suffrage.
And she founds an organization with a friend of hers called the College Equal Suffrage League.
And the goal was to publicized the woman’s suffrage movement and gated hearings from Woman in college and young Woman graduates on.
And that becomes very important because it brings a lot of new energy to the movement on some other very important local woman.
Are woman who were working class woman women who were Irish Catholic from other immigrant backgrounds.
One of my very favorite, So I give quite a bit of attention to In my book is a woman named Margaret, fully armed from Dorchester, Massachusetts, and she is a pioneer of some of the new radical tax optics they’re used in that era,
so she does things, for instance, like go up in a hot air balloon at a county fair to bring attention to the movement.
She also pioneers actually attacking or criticizing,
anti suffrage politicians and their electoral campaigns and urging them are forcing them to have to defend opposition to woman suffrage if that’s what they have.
[45:35] They were also a woman named Mary Kenny O’Sullivan, who helps to found the woman’s Trade Union League, which supports unionization efforts for working class woman.
Uh, and that helps to bring many working class woman into the suffrage movement.
And, of course, bringing women into the movement was critical.
But the most important thing was then having these woman persuade men to vote to support women’s suffrage, since ultimately one had to persuade those who had the power of the vote to share that power.
And so these were some of the woman and new organizations, new tactics that helped to accomplish that.
Nikki:
[46:15] Our listeners may be surprised to learn that Massachusetts was also at the center of the anti suffrage movement.
So why did Baystate conservatives have such a deep and prolonged resistance to woman suffrage? Really, as late as 1915.
Barbara:
[46:32] I think the reason, uh, at its most simple is that men in power, many of them the conservative man, wanted to maintain their positions of power.
And their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters either believed or were persuaded to believe that their position of privilege that they had as a result of these familial relationships,
were best protected.
The of the status quo, in other words, that not having change allowed them to have this privileged protected position in society.
Um, and they were persuaded that, uh, society life as they knew it would be threatened and really would be turned upside down.
Were the floodgates opened and all woman able to be enfranchised.
Nikki:
[47:28] So we discussed that in the first wave of the woman’s suffrage movements, there was a really lack of diversity amongst the leadership. Did that change as we roll into the 20th century?
Barbara:
[47:40] You have to think about, of course, both the foot soldiers and the leaders.
And by the time we get to the 20th century, there were thousands of foot soldiers working on behalf of suffrage all across the country.
On DSO, They certainly is Diversity reflected among them, Um, the leadership of the woman’s suffrage movement remains largely still white, native born and Protestant.
[48:06] There are some exceptions. I mentioned, for example, a couple of Irish Catholic leaders already from Massachusetts, so they’re certainly becomes more diversity of class and ethnic background when it comes to people who are white.
But the woman’s suffrage movement does remain largely a white movement.
There were many, many African American woman who were very active in the struggles, both against racism and four enfranchisement, But they were not typically welcome into leadership of the National American Woman Suffrage Association.
[48:40] And that was for a couple of different reasons.
One is a course that some of these women were themselves racist,
Um, and another was that they were very concerned, even if they weren’t themselves racist, with ultimately gaining some support from a critical number of Southern congressmen or senators.
Because the woman’s suffrage leaders knew that ultimately, if there was going to be a federal amendment that it was going to have to be supported in Congress by some number of Southern congressmen and senators.
And they knew that ultimately, to have 36 states ratified that at least several of these states were going to have to be southern states,
and they were willing to make whatever compromises were necessary on when that basically meant was talking on Lee about gender, not talking about race,
and making it clear through their silences that they understood that the same Jim Crow laws which had so effectively stripped African American men of the right to vote in the southern states,
would very likely be employed in those same states to strip African American woman of the right to vote should a woman suffrage amendment passed.
Nikki:
[49:58] So we know that there was defeat in Massachusetts in 1915.
And yet we do see success on the federal level just a few years after that. And I feel like so much happens in that time that, you know, we we could go for another hour.
I’m really talking about how we get it to the end zone, but, you know, kind of high level. How do we How do we see that conclusion Come?
Barbara:
[50:29] One of the amazing things about the suffer story is what you just said, which is You go from this dark moment in 1915 when the male voters in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
each defeat an amendment to the state constitution to enfranchise woman and then five years later you have woman across the country going to the polls in 1920.
The way that happened is because so many things were teed up that made the situation possible.
So after 1915 very soon after, the National American Woman Suffrage Association basically says no more state campaigns except in states we really think we’re likely to win.
We have enough support now in Congress to switch our efforts to Washington toe lobbying and to seeking a federal amendment.
They also are aware that that way they only will need continued support from politicians, whether in Congress or state legislatures to have to ratify.
But they wouldn’t again have to go before the ordinary voter.
Nikki:
[51:33] So now we’re convincing a few 100 men and not a few 1,000,000.
Barbara:
[51:35] Correct. And of course, in those four states where women’s suffrage was defeated in 1915 the state legislatures had agreed to put it before the voters, so they recognized that the power of the woman’s suffrage movement had become,
quite a quite powerful in terms of attacking politicians for their stance.
So exactly convince a few 100 no longer thousands.
[51:59] Secondly, you have a new group, a new schism in the woman’s suffrage movement that leads to the formation of the national Woman’s Party.
And that’s a more militant wing of the movement led by Alice Paul and her colleague Lucy Burns.
And they had both been in England and had become, ah, advocates of the more militant picketing and protest strategies of the woman’s social and political union there.
And they bring those tactics back here.
These are the woman that famously picket in front of the White House, for example.
And even though it’s a small number of woman, the newspapers love following it, and so it brings a lot of additional publicity’s to the movement.
World War One is also very, very critical because Woodrow Wilson had brought this nation into world war.
Pledging to may should make the nation on the world safe for democracy and during world war.
For a number of different reasons, a number of European nations begin to enfranchise there, woman,
and that leads American Woman to be able to say to the president, You know, how can you argue you’re making the world safe for democracy when you deny the vote toe have the adult population in this country?
And Wilson, although he had been opposed to the woman’s suffrage movement, shifts and decided that he would like to put this divisive domestic issue behind him, and that he becomes an advocate for women’s suffrage.
[53:25] And probably the last thing when I’m listing these thes important changes is that the liquor industry had also been a strong opponent of women’s suffrage.
They were concerned that if a woman were enfranchised, many woman were members of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union that they would support efforts to end alcohol.
And when the Prohibition amendment, the 18th Amendment, wasn’t acted before woman had the boat, the liquor industry ceases its opposition and said that also shut off the flow of cash to the anti suffrage movement.
So all of these things come together instead of a crescendo over a couple of years in particular 1917 1918.
That paves the way for Congress to propose the 19th Amendment in 1919.
Nikki:
[54:18] One of the things that I think we can take away from this process that begins arguably in 18 48 actually, maybe a little bit earlier.
It’s just how much the shifting landscape of the world and you know, the other things happening in the country are really gonna impact reform and any kind of social change.
You know, it’s hard to imagine what would have happened to woman suffrage if not for the Civil War, if not for the Gilded Age, if not for World War.
Are there other lessons that you think we should be taking away? You know, I think, particularly as people are really thinking about reform today in areas where progress still has much to be made.
Barbara:
[55:05] I think that there were many lessons to take away from the woman’s suffrage movement.
Certainly one of the most profound to me is the importance of exercising the right to vote and protecting the right to vote.
It’s really quite stunning that in the same year, 2020 as we will be celebrating ratification of the 19th Amendment.
We also have lawsuits and laws in many different states in this country seeking disenfranchise a number of people by removing them from the voting rolls or making it more difficult for them to go out and exercise their right to vote.
So I think one lesson is the fundamental importance of the ballot in our society and of insuring people’s ability to go out and exercise it.
I think another very important lesson is the difficulty of change in backlash and, for instance, when you refer to the anti suffrage movement and how deep seated it was in Massachusetts,
with progress comes backlash and I think understanding that change is hard and to recognize the change requires great dedication, perseverance and persistence.
Nikki:
[56:18] So, Barbara, my last question for you, I hope, is a fun one for you to think about. An answer of the women, the many, many women who you have studied and researched and mentioned in the book.
Which one of them would you most like to have dinner with today and why?
Barbara:
[56:34] I guess even though she is very well known and I know a lot about her, I would probably still have to say Lucy Stone, because I so admire the work.
She did her dedication and because Lucy Stone was so self effacing and didn’t write her own version of history and didn’t write a memoir on so forth, it would just be particularly fun,
to sit down and see if she would answer questions such as, like, what were you thinking when X happened?
And what were you thinking when why happened? So I guess I would have to choose her.
Nikki:
[57:12] I have a clear choice. And surprisingly, she hasn’t come up yet in this conversation, although I also haven’t asked about her.
My choice is Sarah Greinke, and you know, of course, choosing between Sarah and Angelina is tough.
But Sarah has a quote in her letters on the equality of the sexes, which I think is the most perfect, like, clear and still shady,
call for equality, in which she says, All I ask of our Brethren is that they will take their feet from off our necks and permit us to stand upright on the ground, which God designed us to occupy.
And it seems to me like so clear and compelling. Yet also, you can tell that she’s like a little bit radical with that also, and I just love it and I love the grim peas.
Barbara:
[58:04] Well, Sarah and Angelina. Grim Key would be wonderful people to include for dinner, although I didn’t mention that maybe I should have.
I did, however, take a trip to Charleston, South Carolina, for the purpose of seeing the house where they grew up, the plantations of their family owned and so forth. So I certainly am an enormous fan.
Other grumpy sisters, and actually they themselves after the Civil War, were among the woman who went and cast votes when I referred to in the contents of Susan B. Anthony, 18 72.
So they are certainly up there. And another wonderful thing about the quote that you mentioned is that quotation is actually used in one of the two recent movies I forget.
If it’s the movie of the documentary about the reef, Vader Ginsburg, who herself turns out to be quite a fan of the Grumpy Sisters.
Nikki:
[58:57] That we’re in good company. Good company. Well, it’s been great talking with you today.
Barbara:
[58:57] Yes, very much.
Nikki:
[59:05] Um, how can our listeners, you know, find you online or,
and or do you have any upcoming speaking engagements where people can come out and see you and hear you talk about the book and suffrage in general?
Barbara:
[59:20] This is a very big year for Woman suffers. So I have a website that has a great number of speaking engagements coming up.
S O. I will be speaking regularly in many destinations, many locations in Massachusetts all throughout the spring and then into next fall so I would love people to visit my website.
You can get there by going to W W W Barbara F.
As in Frank Berenson, So www, barbara F. Berenson dot com and my book is available for purchase through Amazon and happily at many local bookstores as well.
Nikki:
[59:57] And will, of course, linked to your website, Um, and the Amazon link for the book in our show notes, which will be hub history dot com slash 168 Barbara, thank you for joining us.
It has been lovely to chat with you.
Barbara:
[1:00:12] Thank you so much for having me. It’s been delightful. Thank you.
Nikki Intro:
[1:00:17] To learn more about women’s suffrage in Massachusetts, check out this week’s show, notes said.
Hub history dot com slash 168 We’ll have links to Barber’s website on her books, as well as information on upcoming events and initiatives that celebrate the centennial year of women’s suffrage.
And, of course, we’ll have a link to information about our upcoming event.
If you want to get in touch with us, you can email us at podcast at hub history dot com.
You can call and leave a voicemail at 6173839 to 55 and we might play it on the show.
Were Hub history on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Or you can go toe hub history dot com and click on the Contact US link while you’re on the site, hit the subscribe Blink and be sure that you never miss an episode.
If you subscribe on Apple podcasts, please think about writing us a brief review.
If you do drop us a line and we’ll send you a Hub history sticker as a token of our appreciation, that’s all for now. We’ll be back next week.
Music