The women’s suffrage movement and the abolitionists used to work together towards the same goal: suffrage and enfranchisement, or in other words full citizenship. But after the Civil war there was a split both within the women’s movement and between the abolitionists and the woman’s suffrage movement. Part of the women’s movement gave up their support of black suffrage and the other part kept supporting black suffrage. But mostly, both movements now pursued their own interests, often at cost of the other. A big part of the women’s movement became increasingly racist. This essay will focus on this split within the women’s movement; why it happened, who was involved, and what the consequences were.
This essay is based on secondary literature and will contain several perspectives on the event that is described. Alma Lutz and Lois Banner give us the perspectives of the ladies involved, Garth Pauley shows W.E.B Du Bois’ vision on women’s suffrage and the alienation of the black men and the white women’s suffragists movement, and Philip Cohen sheds a light on the influence of nationalism on the women’s movement.
The thesis that I adopted was that the women’s suffrage movement changed their stance on black suffrage mostly because of envy and spite. When African Americans were granted full citizenship (including voting rights) the women’s movement was disappointed and angry for being left behind. They had always supported the abolitionist movement. But were now ignored and left behind. So this essay will be focussing on this premise and will try to determine if this assumption is true or not. So the main questions that are being answered are: what was the cause of the split? What did the split mean? And what were the consequences?
The first part will focus on the problem with the actual conflict and thus the cause of the split within the movement. The second part of this essay focusses on specific examples of women that changed their stance on black suffrage. These examples are the cases of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth C. Stanton, both women that were important within the Women’s Suffrage Movement and both women they became openly racist after the Civil War. The third chapter will focus on the consequences of this split within the movement.
In the article written by Garth E. Pauley the author talks about W.E.B. Du Bois vision on women’s suffrage. This is an interesting vision on the issue because it shows the other side of the story, and it also gives a nicely summarized explanation as to what occurred in these tumultuous times. According to Du Bois (not to be confused with E.C. Dubois) blacks and white suffragettes initially struggled together to win vote. But when it became clear that only African American men would be enfranchised, many white suffragists spoke out against the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments. White suffragists argued that the absence of women’s suffrage prevented them from supporting the amendments, and many white suffragists used racist arguments to support their claim. These arguments cut to the bone of the black suffragists and made clear that the principled collaboration between black and white had been a facade all along, and it was suggested that the collaboration had always been about political advantage and not about principle. 1
The conflict surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment (which was passed in 1868) was one of the first incidents that divided black men and white suffragists, because it included the word ‘male’ meaning that women were now officially excluded from this enfranchisement. The Woman’s Rights Association had only just morphed into the American Equal Rights Association (AERA), but tensions within the organization were already rising. Wendell Phillips and Theodore Tilton suggested turning away from woman suffrage for the moment. This was met with outrage by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Other women’s suffrage advocates accepted the Fourteenth Amendment with the idea that both blacks and woman suffrage were important but that the nation would only accept one reform at a time. Stanton and Anthony’s ideas about women’s suffrage alienated many African Americans, including the important black leader Frederick Douglass. He had been a strong supporter of women’s rights but he believed in the priority of black suffrage and worried that if African Americans did not take this chance during this crucial hour, they might not get it again. 2
Although the conflict between black men and white suffragists started with the Fourteenth amendment the real division occurred during the debate about the Fifteenth Amendment (that was passed in 1870). This Amendment prohibited discrimination in voting rights of citizens on the base of race, colour or previous condition of servitude.3 Again women were excluded from the attained privileges. The debate about the Fifteenth Amendment divided suffragists into three parties: Those who thought it unwise to try to add women’s suffrage (mostly including the old, original abolitionists). Those who thought every effort should be made to try to include women, but if this was impossible the amendment should still pass (this group included people like Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell), and those who thought that if the amendment did not include women it should not be passed (this group was headed by Stanton and Anthony). The peak of the conflict was reached at the AERA meeting May 1869 where Stanton made racist comments and stated that she did not believe ‘in allowing ignorant negroes and foreigners to make laws for her to obey’.4 Other white suffragists like Lucy Stone and Julia Ward did accept Fifteenth Amendment. At the end of the meeting the AERA split into two parties: the ‘National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) that focused on woman suffrage and refused to support the Fifteenth Amendment if it did not extend the vote to women. And the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) that was in favour of universal suffrage. These members were prepared to (temporarily) support black suffrage while there was an opportunity for success. 5 Around this time many white suffragists accepted an ideology of white supremacy.
According to Kraditor three developments led to the women’s movement support of racist ideas: The first development is that more racist women joined the movement when it became more popular. The second development according to Kraditor is that many abolitionists of the old guard accepted the new ideology and came to the conclusion that black suffrage and women’s suffrage were entirely unrelated things. And finally the Southern white women began to build suffrage movement on the idea that women’s suffrage would ensure white supremacy in the South, this movement focused on ‘strategies of expediency’ and many members were willing to accept the accompanying racist views if this meant enfranchisement of women.6 Even Susan B. Anthony, who had been a fervent opponent of racism, was willing to go along with this movement’s ‘Southern Strategy’. She was willing to tolerate racism if it meant gaining the right to vote and became increasingly more racist as time went by.7
To sum up the two primary causes of the alienation between blacks and white suffragists were the conflict surrounding the ‘Negro’s Hour’, the struggle for universal suffrage that resulted in suffrage only for black males, and the ‘Southern Strategy’, the decision by many white suffragists to ignore the race issue to win Southern support for their cause, which led to racist arguments by many of the white suffragists.8
In his article Philip N. Cohen talks about the fact that the women’s suffrage movement underwent a shift in it’s core ideas. Before and during the Civil War women’s suffrage and abolitionism went hand in hand. African Americans and suffragettes were both fighting for the same thing; equality and the right to vote. The women’s rights activists collected signatures for the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Their beliefs stressed the equality of men and women and challenged the general idea of separate gender spheres. After the 1860’s this idea lost its appeal in the suffrage movement and by the 1880’s the new ideology was based on women’s distinctive nature and special roll in social reform based on differences. This was later known as ‘essentialism’. This new philosophy stressed the the differences between men and women. This difference was, according to the suffragists, essential to “counter-act the excels of masculinity that is found in unjust and unequal laws”.9 This form of essentialism sacrificed any principle (most importantly, suffrage for former slaves) to attain voting rights for white women. There was also still a part of the movement that still held on to the principal of Natural Rights. This part of the movement still identified more closely with abolitionism and more frequently included non-white women. 10
Women’s and blacks’ voting rights were pitted against each other more and more often. An increasing number of states accepted black suffrage, but the women’s movement made no progress. After the Fourteenth Amendment was accepted the number of abolitionist feminist greatly declined. This Amendment granted explicit rights to black men, which meant that the white women’s demands were ignored. This dealt a crucial blow to the natural rights perspective in the women’s movement. Prominent members of the women’s movement, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, had planned for the white women to follow the black men in the gaining of rights. But this didn’t happen, so Stanton and other suffragettes denounced the Fourteenth Amendment as a ‘desecration’. 11 This fallout revealed that the alliance between abolitionism and suffragists had mostly been tactical. The women’s movement mostly turned its back on the abolitionists and the new suffrage arguments contained a strong theme of race antagonism. 12
Buechler follows the career of Elizabeth Boynton Harbert. She was a leader during the period of transition from equality to diffence-based arguments. One of the changes that took place was that the women’s movement changed the wording of its arguments. ‘The beneficiary of women’s suffrage was less often construed as women themselves and more often couched in abstract terms like society, the nation, the race, and civilization’.13 Voting rights would serve not only the interests of women but would serve the urgent needs of the nation as a whole. Women’s votes represented ‘loyalty, virtue, wealth, and education’ this was needed ‘to outweigh the incoming tide of poverty, ignorance, and vice that threatens our very existence as a nation,’14 According to Stanton allowing black men to vote elevated the ‘lowest orders of manhood’ over the ‘highest classes of women’. Susan B. Anthony agreed with her, arguing that ; intelligence, justice and morality are to have precedence in the Government and therefore the question of ‘woman’ should be brought up first and that of the negro last’.15
In the most extreme form, the NASWA (National American Woman Suffrage Association) called for a restriction of black suffrage. This shift from the notion of inherent natural rights for women and against blacks rights is essential. Because not only do white women exclude black women from the movement, but white women’s suffrage organizations now actively pursued a nationalist gender alliance. The women’s movement now sought unity with white men (and their nation) rather than non-white women and men.16 Stanton placed the women’s movement within the historical pattern of white Republican egalitarianism that was paired with exclusion of non-whites from the ‘national family’, when she referred to white women as ‘women of the Republic’ in 1866.17
According to Paula Giddings the shift in the women’s suffrage movement during the post-Reconstruction era was mostly due to practicality. There was an upcoming trend towards restricting black voting rights and the women’s movement mostly went along with it. This shift created a space in which white women sought to justify who should have the vote and why, rather than emphasize a truly universal suffrage.18 At the same time E. Dubois argues that the Fifteenth Amendment brought a nationalist edge to the suffragists argumentation because it transferred control over the right of suffrage from the state to the national level. Therefore suffragists had to make their case one of national importance.19 The women’s movement found out that enfranchising blacks would only promise them partial (Republican) support and a smaller advantage than enfranchising the woman. This would ‘uplift the nation at its very heart, the family’.20 This trend that moved toward essentialist feminism, that focused only on women’s suffrage and was deliberately more nationalistic, shaped the white women’s movement as a force of nation building. The women’s movement advocated that national domination could not be complete or successful without the voting citizenship of white women.21
Buechler considers the fact that in late nineteenth century the women’s suffrage movement’s arguments ‘reinforced rather than challenged dominant notions about sex and gender’ a paradox.22 But that this reinforcement of some aspects of dominant gender relationships at that moment served as a strategy to serve the interests of the very specific women that led the suffrage movement. This form of essentialist feminism focused on the complementary partnership between white men and white women rather than emphasizing the conflict on the issue of black suffrage. This strategy was undeniably useful to the women who pursued it, but in the long run it may have undermined the struggles for gender equality.23 So what we see here is a strategic shift of ideology to benefit the white women’s suffrage movement. This shift sacrificed any other form of principle to obtain voting rights for women, which meant a split between the women’s rights movement and the black suffrage movement.
Eleanor Flexner adds to the discussion that Stanton believed that accepting the Fourteenth Amendment would set woman suffrage back a full century. The indignation of Anthony and Stanton knew no bounds. Stanton warned that the Republicans’ advocacy of manhood suffrage would culminate fearful outrages on womanhood, especially in the southern states. Flexner also adds that Stanton and Anthony thought that what was often called ‘the Negro Hour’ could also be the women’s hour and that both ladies were afraid that this opportunity might not recur in a lifetime. According to Stanton and Anthony it would have been so easy to include the word ‘sex’ in the Fifteenth Amendment, but Flexner argues that they failed to see that such a step was still far ahead of practical political possibilities as the debate about women’s suffrage had not yet been around long enough to make any practical changes. The division within the suffrage movement was, according to Flexner, unfortunate but inevitable during the 1870’s and the 1880’s as this was a period of intense economic development and change during which social forces polarized in midst of widespread unrest. This break would continue until one of the trends, respectability or radicalism, became the dominant form. In the meantime there would still be victories and the area of politics would eventually be breached. 24
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was born in the Burned Over district of New York, this had been a centre of reform activities for a long time. Her family connections and lively intellectual curiosity made her a participant in these movements.25 As an activist Stanton was first and foremost a feminist. She became an anti- slavery activist only when the Civil War broke out. This was in contrast with other important women’s rights activists like Lucy Stone and Antoinette Brown, whose abolitionism came before their feminism and this would remain their main commitment. Her feminism was strengthened by her love for speculation which led her to a search of the underlying principles of human and social behaviour. 26
According to Clara Bewick Colby the women’s movement took a definite form of specific and organized demands in Stanton. Her personality ‘won for the woman’s cause the ear of the world’, and Colby claims that ‘it is not too much to claim that the condition of all women has been modified, improved, or given new trend because of the movement which Stanton was the embodied will and purpose’. 27
Susan B. Anthony thought striving for liberty and for a democratic way of life was a noble tradition and followed in this tradition. She devoted her life to the establishment of equal rights that according to her had to be expressed in the laws of a true republic. She recognized an extreme violation of this principle of equal rights in black slavery and the legal bondage of women so she became an active, courageous, and effective antislavery crusader and one of the most important civil and political rights activists for women. She saw the woman’s struggle for freedom from these legal restrictions as an important phase in the development of American democracy. To her this struggle was not a battle of the sexes, but a battle that anyone would fight for civil and political rights. While her goals for women were only partly realised by the time she died, she was still a crucial factor in the acceptance of her federal suffrage amendment and also in the worldwide recognition of human rights. 28
Throughout her career the origins of Stanton’s ideas lay in both her extensive reading and her own experience. Her ideas were intertwined with her autobiography; her life was her primary source of ideas, and this in turn influenced her actions. The essential lines of her thought were fully developed by the 1860s and these remained the same until the last two decades of her life. Her dedication to feminist individualism was a constant theme, as was her belief in the efficiency of education and the superior value of coeducation over single-sex education. She never abandoned her support of woman suffrage or her belief that reform in marital relationships was the key to human progress.29
Before and during the Civil War Susan B. Anthony was one of the most important people within the abolitionist movement. She was actively involved in the abolitionist movement. She held antislavery meetings, made speeches and distributed leaflets whenever and wherever possible and thus seemed to care a great deal about the cause of black suffrage and equality. 30 Although she was actively involved in the abolitionist movement, she did not forget women. She called attention to the fact that the nation had never been a true republic because the ballot was exclusively in the hands of the ‘free white male’. She asked for a government ‘of the people’, men and women, white and black, with Negro suffrage and woman suffrage as basic requirements. This speech was met with great enthusiasm by the Republicans. This enthusiasm was so great that the Republicans urged her to prepare it for publication but they suggested that she delete the passage on woman suffrage. For Anthony, this was the first indication that Republicans might balk at the idea of enfranchising women. Both Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Anthony had come to expect that the ballot of women’s enfranchisement would be given as a reward. Because the contribution of women to the winning of the war had been so great that Republicans were indebted to the women for creating the sentiment for the third amendment. But it became more and more obvious that politicians were shying away from woman suffrage. This filled Anthony with great despair, for she firmly believed that women who had been asking for full citizenship for seventeen years deserved to be a higher priority than the Negro. Stanton agreed with Anthony on this point. To them black suffrage without women’s suffrage was unthinkable and an unbearable humiliation. They thought that women were better qualified for the ballot than the majority of the black people who were illiterate because of the years of slavery and thereby an easy prey for unscrupulous politicians. They argued that enfranchising blacks that if there had to be a limitation on suffrage it should be on the base of literacy, not on the basis of sex. 31
Throughout the entire country, people were thinking about the Constitution as had not happened since the Bill of Rights. There were several amendments up for discussions, rebel states were being reintroduced into the Union with entirely new constitutions and Northern constitutions were being revised. According to Anthony this was the perfect time to proclaim equal rights for all. This was to be the woman’s hour.32
But with the introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment came a great disappointment. Anthony found that the House of Representatives had written the word ‘male’ into the new resolution as one of the qualifications of voters. Anthony and Stanton agreed in their discussion that they needed to create an overwhelming demand for woman suffrage in this crucial time. The women set to work to gather as many of the activists as possible, which was a challenge because they had scattered over the years. Several agreed with Anthony that Congress had to be petitioned immediately to enfranchise women either before or at the same time that blacks were granted the right to vote. Anthony quickly found out that by pressing for woman suffrage, she was estranging many abolitionists. But Anthony and Stanton were determined that a petition for women’s suffrage go to Congress, so they went ahead undeterred. 33
Anthony came to realise that the two powerful Republicans, Senator Sumner (the senator of Massachusetts) and Thaddeus Stevens, were going to devote themselves to blacks suffrage completely, even though both of them were friendly to women’s suffrage. This meant that the extension of Sumner and Stevens’ party would follow them which meant the women’s movement could not expect help from any lesser party members. Therefore the only alternative was to appeal to the Democrats and maybe an occasional recalcitrant Republican and Anthony would have nothing stand in her way. Anthony found several supporters within the Democratic party that wanted to present her petitions. The reasons varied. Some saw justice in the demands of the women’s movement, others thought white women should have precedence over blacks, and some saw support of women’s suffrage as a way to spite the Republicans. During 1866 petitions for woman suffrage with several thousands of signatures were presented by Democrats and some irregular Republicans. This collaboration could then be seen as a success for the women’s movement. Still this did not end in significant progress. 34
Both women followed Theodore Tilton (a popular newspaper editor at the height of his popularity) in the idea to merge the American Antislavery Society and the women’s rights group and form an American Equal Rights Association that would fight for woman and black suffrage. He suggested it be led by the well-known abolitionist (and early ally of Anthony) Wendell Philips. Anthony trusted that both men would handle the process, not even suspecting that they would ever oppose their ideas. But Anthony and Stanton did not have to wait long for their wake up call. During a meeting with Wendell Philips and Theodore Tilton about a plan for their campaign, Wendell Philips declared that ‘the time was ripe for striking the word “white” out of the constitution, but not the word “male”’. He went on that the question of striking out the word “male” was present in the association as an intellectual theory, but it was not seen as a practical thing to be accomplished by this convention. Anthony was outraged by this as she was completely unprepared for this attitude on Wendell Tilton’s part. She stated that she would rather ‘cut off my right hand than ask for the ballot for the black man and not for woman’ and swept out of the office. Stanton stayed to try to heal the split, but to no avail. When Anthony returned tot the Stanton home they both vowed then and there that they would devote themselves with all their might and main to woman suffrage and tot that alone. 35
Suzanne Marilley argues that to succeed the suffragists had to ‘adapt goals for social change to the reform options available in the American political system’ and ‘put the reforms in appealing packages.’ This was, according to Marilley, only possible the movement agreed to disagree about all issues besides suffrage; they had to make the vote their single issue. This single issue approach allowed ‘the formation of a coalition that included prohibitionists, racists, anti-child labour reformers, Republicans, and Democrats but left the suffragists in control’.36 Without such coalition, which gained the support of states like Texas, Tennessee and Arkansas, the Nineteenth Amendment (granting voting rights to women) would have probably never been ratified. 37
Buechler does not appear to agree with this idea. According to him this form of essentialist feminism focused on the complementary partnership between white men and white women rather than emphasizing the conflict on the issue of black suffrage. Buechler says this strategy was undeniably useful tot the women who pursued it, but in the long run it may have undermined the struggles for gender equality. Unfortunately this point is not further elaborated in the article, but its suggested that Buechler thought that this new strategy hindered further progress rather than help it like Marilley suggested. Cohen seems to mostly agree with Marilley (although maybe not to the same extent). This could be concluded from the fact that he sees the shift in ideology as a strategic move to gain white followers.
Among other conclusions, Cohen concludes that by the use of difference-based feminism the suffrage leaders allowed movement to make a more credibly nationalist claim. This made feminism an acceptable part of a national movement and ideology. This approach helped convince male politicians and voters that white women’s votes would serve the nation by complementing rather than challenging men’s role. Cohen calls this “gender alliance building’. He emphasizes that although this alliance advanced white women’s suffrage, it also contributed to the oppression of non-white women and men who were excluded from the alliance and it reinforced women’s separate and subordinate role in political rights by emphasizing the separate spheres. Cohen concludes that by acting in their own interests (and working against non-white women) white women may benefit from alliances with white men, but women of other groups will still be victims of the white women’s dominance if they continue to accept the claims that white women serve the good of all women (which evidently is not the case).38
W.E.B. Du Bois thought that woman suffrage would not have any real benefits for African Americans as a race or for black women, but he still supported it. Du Bois mostly talks about the direct consequences of the conflict within the women’s rights movement that resulted in the alienation of the black men and the white women, whom had previously worked together.
This change in ideology also had several direct consequences. Like the direct alienation of African Americans from the women’s movement, the nationalistic edge the suffrage movement got, the higher exclusivity of the women’s movement and of course the acceptance and increase of racism within the movement. Racism also increased within the movement because the new ideology attracted a new, more racist, type of woman to the movement. Which then again led to an increase of racist ideas. Though one might say that this change of belief created a stronger unity within the white community in the South.
There are also debatable consequences. It is hard to say for certain, but it is highly likely that this split in the movement and the new ideology had consequences for racism in the United States. And it is possible that because of this change in ideology racism lasted longer than it could have had the woman suffragists not turned their back on black suffrage.
The thesis originally adopted was that the women’s suffrage movement changed their stance on black suffrage mostly because of envy and spite. The research showed that there definitely was an undertone of anger present within the movement. This can be found in the recollection of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s experiences. It was obvious that both ladies were extremely angry and disappointed when neither the Fourteenth or the Fifteenth Amendment enfranchised women. So in that light the thesis was correct. But there is also another part of the story.
Cohen showed that this was not just a reaction but a choice. Both Stanton and Anthony were prepared to do whatever was necessary to get woman’s suffrage. The women’s movement shifted from idea of the enfranchisement of all as equals to ‘essentialism’. This philosophy stressed the differences between men and women and was according to the suffragists essential to counter act excels of masculinity. This form of essentialism also sacrificed any principle to attain voting rights for whit women and was meant to form an alliance with the white male population instead of the black population. It emphasized nationalism and white supremacy.
Gidding says the shift was also due to practicality. There was an upcoming trend towards restricting the rights of black people and women’s movement went along with it to get on the good side of the white male population. The shift could also be explained (like Du Bois says) by the fact that the Fifteenth Amendment made suffrage the responsibility of the nation instead of the state. The women’s movement responded by making their movement more nationalistic. This is an argument in favour of the conscious choice of changing the women’s movement’s ideology. Buechler also agrees with the fact that the reinforcement of the dominant gender rules and the abstraction from black suffrage was a strategic move to benefit the white women’s suffrage movement.
Du Bois informed us that the primary causes of the alienation between blacks and white suffragists were the conflict surrounding the ‘Negro’s Hour’ and the ‘Southern Strategy’ and gave a different perspective on the matter and repeated that the ‘Southern Strategy’ of ignoring race issues was mostly due to frustration with the exclusion of women from Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment. Which is mostly an argument in favour of the feelings of resentment that the suffragists felt.
In the chapter that looks in to Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s point of view. It becomes clear that both women were certainly angry and disappointed. So much that they agree to do whatever was necessary to attain women’s suffrage. So it can be concluded that feelings of hate and resentment certainly had a place in the split of the women’s movement and the change in the ideology. But as previously stated, and this argument is supported by most of the material that was used, the shift in ideology was mostly a conscious effort to get the white male voters on their side and it was a practical solutions. Like they said: ‘by any means necessary’.
As a final note I have to add that my research is, of course, limited. I did not have access to all the material I wanted to use, because it unfortunately wasn’t available to me. Further research into this subject would be welcome to dive further into the subject, give a wider view of the events that took place and the reasons behind it, and could do more research on the subject of the consequences of the change in ideology for the black population.
- Banner, L. W. Elizabeth Cady Stanton : a radical for woman’s rights (Boston,1980)
- Buechler, S.M., The Transformation of the Woman Suffrage Movement: The Case of Illinois, 1850- 1920 (New Brusnwick, 1986)
- Buhle, M.J., and P. Buhle. The Concise History of Woman Suffrage: Selections from the Classic Work of Stanton, Anthony, Gage, and Harper (Urbana, 1978)
- Cohen, P.N., ‘Nationalism and Suffrage: Gender Struggle in Nation-Building America’, Signs, Vol. 21, (1996) p. 707-727
- (Speech before the Jidciary Committee of the New York Senate, May 1867, Stanton Papers, Manuscripts Divisian, Library of Congress; Cohen, ‘Nationalism and Suffrage’)
- Cott, N.F., The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven, 1987)
- Dubois, E.C. Feminism and Suffrage: The Emergence of an Independent Women’s Movement in America, 1848-1869 (London, 1947)
- Feimster, C.N., Southern Horrors (Cambridge, 2009)
- Kraditor, A. S., The ideas of the woman suffrage movement, 1890-1920 (New York, 1965)
- Lutz, A., Susan B. Anthony: Rebel, Crusader, Humanitarian, (Boston, 1959)
- Marilley, S., ‘Towards a New Strategy for the ERA: Some Lessons from the American Woman Suffrage Movement’ Women and Politics, 9(4) 23-42
- Norton, M.B. and R.M. Alexander, eds. Major Problems in American Women’s History. (D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA, 1996).
- Pauley, G.E.,’WEB Du Bois on Woman Suffrage: A critical analysis of his writings’, Journal of black Studies, Volume 30, No. 3, p. 383-419
...(download the rest of the essay above)