Was in print. We always kind of gravitated toward each other. I was such a huge fan of her reporting and she was such a respected journalist. But johanna, youve gone on to even greater things. She went on to earn her ph. D. , as you just heard. She is a scholar in residence. Shes done extraordinary historical work and this latest book is just a treat for all of you who havent had a chance to read it yet or peek at it, you are truly in for a treat. So johanna without going any longer on all the prefaces, just why havent you changed in 30 years . [laughter] johanna full disclosure good doctors. [laughter] judy you covered i knew you as a reporter, Los Angeles Times, covering politics. You covered the white house, the state department and conditioning congress. How did you find your way from doing that to being interested in history . Johanna well, actually, i was very happy as a journalist. I loved what i was doing. Can you all hear me . But in late 2008 when the economy was collapsing, the Los Angeles Times where i worked decided to close its Washington Bureau and i took a buyout, as many journalists have in the last few decades. And i started freelancing. The Los Angeles Times called me back within a month and asked if i would do their Political Blog from washington in the Morning Hours before anyone in los angeles was up so if anything happened in washington in the morning, it was mine. And one day, im sure many of you remember this, the obamas got a dog. His name was bo and he was a portuguese water dog. And, of course, everyone is going to have this tidbit and my job as a blogger is to think how can i distinguish us. So i thought and thought and i did a blog post that was titled obamas get a black and white dog and i did a postracial biracial presidency and what it meant for the country that we now have a black and white dog. And this thing went viral for about 15 minutes and the National Editor called me several hours later and said, this was fabulous, lets have more of this. This is fantastic. And later that evening when i was having dinner with my husband without title, jeff glazer, i said, you know, i really have to find something more substantive because [laughter] judy the dog lovers here may resent that. Johanna that is the truth. And then we started brainstorming about what i could do that i loved and i had always loved history. My father was a great history buff and it given me the bug. So i decided at a very advanced age to go back to school and get my ph. D. In history. This is my first book as a historian and its also, for me, its the first test of my conviction that you can marry the deep Archival Research imperative of the historian with the narrative skills of a journalist. Judy why did you want to write about these women and the suffragists. This was an aspect of the Suffragist Movement that has gotten virtually no attention. Johanna i knew very little about the Suffragist Movement. Its not like they taught it in school. So it was one of the topics that interested me while i was back in school and i was first going to write about suffrage in the 19th century when there was this terrible schism between the two branches of the movement. Between Elizabeth Cady stanton and susan b. Anthony on one side and lucy stone and her husband henry blackwell, on the other. Stone and blackwell after the civil war, they are staunch abolitionists and they believe that the black men should be enfranchised first, that the 15th amendment would give black men the right to vote, should be ratified and then women can fight for their vote. Susan b. And Elizabeth Cady, if theyre going into the constitution, were going with them or else were fighting it. And this split the movement for almost 30 years. And they had rival organizations. It was deeply damaging for the cause. And i was set out that was going to be my dissertation topic. I was going to prove that Elizabeth Cady and susan b. Were horrible people and had ruined the movement and so forth. But it was so depressing [laughter] johanna and my faculty adviser alan crowder, has kindly come here today and he can remember that i walked into his office and i said, i want to start thinking about what finally worked. I want to look forward to the positive news that women finally got the vote. So i started researching the early 20th century to see what was going on. I started reading newspaper accounts and i tripped over these women. Nobody had noticed them. They were there they were sort of too famous to notice. Judy you didnt know about them when you started this thing, is that right . Johanna no, no. I was reading, you know, newspapers from the 1900s and there would be occasional references to events where these fancy uber wealthy celebrity socialites were coming out for suffrage. What happened, when they joined suffrage in 1908, this, again is a movement thats sort of been in the doldrums, its been languishing. Its considered the cause of the fringe, the intellectual fringe or theres various code words you know theres code words for lesbian fringe or radical fringe. But clearly not the mainstream. And then come these Society Women and theyre covered already. Theyre celebrity figures theyre covered by the press for their decor, their clothes, their travel their entertainment. Theyre just over the top, which is one reason its such a fun read. But when they came out for votes for women, it electrified Public Opinion. It sort of interested the mainstream. It would be like Angelina Jolie embracing and suddenly u. N. Refugees get sexy. Its like, who valid thought. But thats what happened, i believe. Judy what was the moment and speaking your point about race that comes up again in what you write about. But what was the moment when did you realize they were consequential enough to devote this much attention to them . What made you realize that . Johanna im not sure i do. I just like their stories. [laughter] johanna and no one had covered them and i just thought they were yeah. I just thought they were delicious characters. Really. It was the journalist in me that resonated first. And then as i studied them, i noticed the consequences of their involvement. You could really see it. One of my favorite anecdotes in the book is about a woman named Florence Nightingale what was her last name judy not the other. Johanna not the other,ia. She was a canadian imiant and she moved to new york and she opened a beauty business. The reason i cant remember her last name is she changed her name to Elizabeth Arden. And Elizabeth Arden was never political and one day she shocked her staff by leaving her desk and going out to join one of the suffrage parades. Those iconic suffrage parades you may have seen photos of, along fifth avenue. And when she got back, her staffers were like, we didnt know you supported the cause. And she said, oh, i dont, but our clients do. [laughter] thats when i knew they were consequential. Judy talk a little about the instigators of this, the first women from the Socialite Group class, whatever we want to call it who were brave enough, bold enough, ahead of their times enough, to stick their necks out and say, im going to do something about this. Johanna the first one and there was a first one was catherine duer mackie. She was the daughter, descentant of great old money in new york and marries new money the silver mining fortune of clarence mackie and his family. They have this gilded existence. They have a place in manhattan and they rent every season in newport. They have a 628 acre estate in rosalind, long island, and catherine is beautiful. Shes stunningingly stunningly beautiful. She is covered for everything she does. When she decides to run for a seat on the school board of rosalind, long island, it is a shock to everyone. And two years later she decides shes going to fight for womens right to vote. And it is electrifying. Theres a woman lucy stone who i mentioned before, from the 19th century. Her daughter, alice wrote this beautiful description of what happens when mackie joins effort. She said, you know, when alices mother lucy, was campaigning for womens rights and against slavery in the 1840s, men hissed men, being the audience right they hissed, they threw rotten eggs. And alice was just beside herself that now mackie speaks, people are clamoring for tickets, they cant wait to hear her, theyre selling out at events. Suffrage finally has a spring in its step. People are excited about it again and i believe thats really one of the assets they bring. The other asset they bring which i mean, we can develop this later but i think you call it an obsession with fashion or call it their eye for fashion, but clearly their fascination with fashion trends was an asset they brought to the campaign. They understood that if you wanted to sell something to the mainstream, you had to present it in such a ways that it would be appealing as you would any consumer product, right . They treated the campaign as if it were a consumer effort. And so i think that was one of her great contributions. Judy way ahead of their day in many respects. Johanna yeah. Judy talk a little bit johanna, about how they were received by the established what was then the movement. They came out of left field right field, i dont know what you want to call it. Johanna they were out of a field. A field that most of us will never understand. Yeah, i mean, the one thing can i tell a story. Judy thats what we love, we love the stories. Johanna one of my Great Research adventures was when i i went to many archives and libraries across the country because these women left bread crumbs everywhere. Judy where are some of those libraries . Johanna if they had all left their materials at the library of congress, it would have been much easier. But some of them left in the shlesinger library at radcliffe, a very good womens collection. The Huntington Library in pasadena. So this was on a trip to los angeles and there were just a few collections i wanted to look at at ucla and one of them was an oral history transcript of mrs. Mackies secretary ethyl was her name. And im pretty excited because as a journalist, you interview people all the time. As a historian, you learn to interview documents. You learn to talk to the people through the documents they left. You can ask them questions. They dont always answer. But i was very excited and i get there and i request the file and the file comes and i open it and theres one page. And it says this transcript is missing. And i dont know if any you have seen a 60something have a hissy fit, but thats what i proceeded to do. And the librarians escorted me out of the research area. And then they summoned this marvelous lady, geraisa barnes, head of the Oral History Department at ucla and i explained the problem and she said i will promise to look for this. I will commission a research assistant. We will scour the library. We will try to get you this transcript. But, because of the rules of oral history at the time this interview was done, which was in the 1960s so this woman was interviewed in the 1960s about events in the 1910s we cant send you a pdf, youre going to have to come back to california. And im a student on a little budget. But two weeks later i get an email from her and she says, im really sorry we never found the transcript. But we did find the tapes. [laughter] she said were going to digitize it, well put it on a c. D. You you can come out here with your laptop and you can listen and you can take notes. This was a great blessing in my life because i got to hear the voice of someone who knew one of my what ive come to call my ladies. Its about as close as a historian can come to touching history. And the thing that tickled me about ethel. Ethel was an immigrant from hungary. Ethel gross. And she talked about mackie and how she had influenced her to dress. She said, mackie dressed her. She said she never overdressed me. She dressed me as a secretary should properly be dressed but she spoiled me for cheap clothes. Mackie took her on the familys twiceayear visits to paris and treated her to a finishing school, really. Treated her to refined living, and what was interesting about and mackie understood the role that fashion played in getting people to her events, but she said, including the reporters, because thats what they wanted to report on, what mrs. Mackie was wearing. Judy imagine the press being interested in that. Johanna i cant, no. But she said that the reporters never left one of our events without a statement from mrs. Mackie about the womens Suffrage Movement. And the other thing that was marvelous about listening to it instead of reading it is that the historian was interviewing ethel gross not because she had been mrs. Mackies secretary but because later in life, she marries Harry Hopkins. And Harry Hopkins, as many of you know went on to be one of f. D. R. s key aides. So the historian keeps trying to push her to talk about harry and ethel keeps wanting to talk about mrs. Mackie. And she finally sort of connects the two by telling him, you know, i just want you to understand that the reason Harry Hopkins married me is when he met me, he didnt see a hungarian immigrant. He saw a lady of refinement. Judy fascinating. But quickly go back to the question about how did the movement receive these women how did they johanna it was mixed. There were some people like Harriet Stanton glass, Elizabeth Cady stantons daughter, saw early that they were going to be key to one of the emerging aspects of the movement, which was a broad based crosscraft coalition. So blache had already reached out to working class women and factory workers and immigrants and professional women and teachers and libraries, middle class club women. And now she could add this piece. And the idea of these parades along fifth avenue was really to demonstrate to men again, that all kinds of women wanted the vote that it wasnt any longer the interest of a few. Judy and i just want to say in about five minutes, were going to open it up for questions from all of you so start thinking of the questions you want to ask johanna. But how how did the when did it click . Youve got so many wonderful stories in here about the tactics, the rivalry between two of these women. There are some wonderful anecdotes about that. But when did it click . When was it clear that these women who later did not get the attention or appreciation that you point out they rightfully deserved when was it clear that they made a difference . Johanna i think it was clear by the mid 1910s. I think by 1915, they were such a staple of the movement, that they were actually by 1912. In 1912, you know, this middle portrait is alva belmont. Alva was mrs. Mackies great rival. And thats interesting too. The very fact that two women of the social class would both want to be queen b of suffrage was kind of interesting. But in the early 1910s, harriet blache tries to get them to join the parades and the parades at that time are controversial. First of all, a parade is seen as a very male, almost military kind of function. Secondly, the idea that women would be walking in the streets was offensive to them. Mackie was horrified. Belmont retreated to her home in long island. They just there was a great deal of fear, not just among the elite women, but also the middle class women that they would be taken for radicals or street walkers. And in 1912 and maybe this is the turning point alva belmont decided that Public Opinion had shifted and would accept women of her standing walking in the streets. And she led a delegation, a contingent in that years parade and several journalists commented afterwards that the push she gave the movement, the public acceptance, the cover was a singular contribution. I dont know if that answers. Judy it does. There are so many fascinating questions. How hard was it for the if you want to call them the intellectuals of the movement, to accept the idea that it took this appeal to society to close to appearance, to broaden the popular appeal of the movement. Johanna i think it was very hard. I think they resisted a lot. They were accustomed to doing things their own way. There was also a great deal of tension over tactics, as you mentioned. There were sort of there was a mainstream movement called the National American womens Suffrage Association which at its peak had two million members. It was the goliath. And they were very much mainstream. They did legislative appeals. They did petitions. They courted the president wanting to get his endorsement. There was a smaller sort of ragtag group of radicals headed by alice paul, called the National Womens party. And 1917, alice paul started picketing the white house. We are at war in europe and a lot of people find this with the air of jingoism pervading the society, its a very controversial thing. So theres this tension over tactics and i wear this pin this is a jailhouse door pin that was made for all the suffragists who went to jail for the right to vote and to me its the meditation on the difference between moderate and radical and makes me sort of ponder which one is more effective at bringing social change. Maybe all of these things contribute. Maybe the fashionability of the gilded ones and the mainstream legislative appeals of the mainstream suffrage activists and the radicals maybe pushing us further than our comfort zone. Judy its one of the enduring questions. Im about to turn it over to the audience. Why do you think though, that essentially these women were forgotten for so long . Johanna i dont know. Judy im not aware of them. Maybe they were written about. Johanna i dont know the answer to that. I think i dont know. I would be curious what readers think about why. To me, theyre compelling figures, as you mentioned not just for their substantive role but for their delightful excesses. So i dont know why theyve been ignored. I think there were agendas. After suffrage is finally enacted, at the federal level in 1920, a lot of memoirs get written, a lot of papers are burned, which surprised me. Some of the main figures in the Suffrage Movement burned their papers including i mean, a lot of major players. So theres a lot we dont know. But i think theres a settling of scores that these women they were resented. They were wealthy. They were autocratic these were not little delicate creatures. One of the things i learned from ethel was that these women were accustomed to running huge estates. They were business women, they were executives. They had two staffs to run. And when they got into the Suffrage Movement, they didnt for the most part did not join already existing movements or organizations. They formed their own. They wanted to do president. So yeah judy questions. Ive got more but i want to give youall a chance. Were a little bit more than halfway into the hour. Lets see and there are two microphones. I think theres one over here . Or just one there. Step up to the mic. I wonder if you know why they burned their papers, thats one question. I also wonder if they used their money to support anybody elses Suffrage Movement and specifically if they had any connection to the radicals. And i also wonder judy wait a minute. Thats a lot of questions. Why did they burn their papers . Johanna when i went back to school, i asked my husband, do you think i have enough brain cells to do this. Can you keep track of these questions for me . On the question of burning papers it has a long legacy. Susan b. Anthony burned her papers. I think there was a feeling like, im going to leave my autobiography or my authorized biography and then im going to burn everything that might contradict it. Did men do that, too . Johanna i dont know. Judy the other question is did they support other causes. Johanna this is a very important question. I had a mentor early on in the process at harvard. His name sell sven beckard. Hes considered the father of the history of capitalism. Hes into big macro history. And he was interested in my work because he had written about the moneyed men of new york but hadnt mentioned the women. So we arranged to have coffee once when i was up in cambridge and he said to me how many of these women do you have . And im thinking like a journalist. And i said, way too many. I have 24 already. And im thinking how am i going to tell a story, weave a narrative, make it compelling. It would be like Downton Abbey on steroids. And he said, well, can you get to 100 . And i said well, you know, i probably could because i had been reading newspaper accounts of the day judy they each had their social networks. Johanna yes. And at the bottom of the newspaper copy would be, also in attendance at this event were mrs. Soandso. But i had been ignoring them because i already had too many and i said i think i can get to 100 and he said you need to get to 200. You need to find out everything you can about them, what church they belonged to, what Political Party they affiliate with, what causes they support, what clubs they joined, whether their money was new or old, whether they were divorced, whether they had children whether they wrote. And this took six months out of the research. I stopped going on trips and i just did the spreadsheet and one of the things it taught me was how they are not a monolith. And i do want to say sometimes all i started with in the morning was the description of someone as mrs husbands name. Thats all i had. And it took me sometimes all day. I looked at census records, birth records, guest notices wedding announcements and i was so triumphant when i got her first name and her maiden name. I felt i had excavated these people. But what the spreadsheet taught me was how myriad were their motives and you really cannot talk about and on the question of radicalism, three of these 200 uber wealthy elite women did join alice pauls more radical organization and they went to jail for the right to vote. One of them is la zine havermeyer who you may know as one of the great art collectors in this country. She was good friends with mary cas at. So and her husband was henry o. Havermeyer who was president of the sugar trust that the federal government eventually busted up for antitrust but they had a lot of money and they went often to europe to visit mary and they had an incredible collection that now undergirds much of the metropolitan museums collection and havermeyer went to jail. Alice paul asked her to come to washington to light a figure of Woodrow Wilson in effigy and so and shes not a kid. At the time, luzion havermeyer is 63 years old and she comes to washington and she never quite lights the match. In fact, she says in an article later, you know, if i had managed to light him on fire, i probably would have gotten a light sentence. But she elects, rather than paying 5 fine, she elects to go to prison. And this radicalizes her and she writes poignantly about, i was in jail thinking, wheres my uncle sam . And so thats why i really cant say they were all of one mind. Judy subject for another book. Next question. Is there a pattern what was the impact on their marriages . Could you see a pattern . Johanna thank you. Judy were they all married . Is that right . Johanna most of them were yeah. I thank you for the question because i always forget to mention, i have a chapter in the book on the men. Its called mere men because thats what the newspapers of the day called them. It was a derisive term, you mere men that are helping the women. Like theyre not really men. And they endeared themselves to me because they took such a beating from their colleagues. That 1912 suffrage parade, there were 1,000 men marching under the mens league for womens suffrage and they took more heckling than any other contingent of the parade. They were called all kinds of names which ill let you imagine. So what was the question . Judy that was it. How did the men johanna most of them were husbands of the women. Judy but some of the husbands had trouble. Johanna quite a few had trouble. And some marriages faltered over it. Judy yes . I believe that the amendment for womens voting was passed finally ratified in 1919. Johanna no, it was passed in 1919. It was ratified in 1920. So it was really a bad time for, like, progressive things. We had the palmer raids we had had during the war, all the germans being lynched, we had the ku klux klan coming in. How was it possible to get such a progressive thing passed . Judy good question. Johanna i think theres the flipside of that is that it was the end of the progressive era. It was a time of many reform causes and all of them in that period seemed to attract a crossclass coalition, a broad tent. So the movements to clean up city hall, to rid City Governance of political bosses, to [laughter] judy i know him. [laughter] johanna so my view is a flipside, that they were the tail end of a progressive era that saw many reform causes over all kinds of issues. Even theres some causes even earlier, the Audubon Society is formed and theres an effort to get women to stop wearing feathers in their hats because its killing off the bird population. So theres all kinds of Reform Efforts that are going on and to me this is in fact, max east man, who was the editor of the masses in Greenwich Village and one of the men mentioned in the mere men chapter, he was a socialist and advocate of free love there was a lot of the whole Birth Control Movement Comes out of this era. He said that the womens right to vote was the great fight for freedom in my generation. And thats sort of how i look at it, too. Judy we have a special guest Betsy Griffith is the author of a book on Elizabeth Cady stanton. Who was a nasty woman. [laughter] judy arent we all . And i teach womens history here and i hope you all learn more and be a guest at one of my classes. Suffrage passes because by 1919, women were voting in enough states and controlled enough Electoral College votes that the congress was going to switch rather than vote them out of office. I cant wait to read your book. Congratulations. Im interested in the money because these women were the emilys list of that era. I know that mrs. Belmont was constantly filling ellis pauls carpenter bag with cash and would come back on the train with it and i know that mrs. Kaat had the leslie magazine money, a 3 million inheritance. Were you able to track actual funds . Did the traditional women get more . Did the radical women get more . Were all these women about whom you have written donors as well as supporters . Johanna thats an interesting question, thank you very much. I think most of them were donors but the point i was hoping to make in the book was rather different because that aspect of their involvement had been covered before. And to me, what was more intriguing was not that they wrote checks but they actually stood with the cause. They marched. They gave speeches. They held events. So thats really what i focused on. I do think that alva belmont probably if you did an accounting she would tip the scales toward the radical side. She had first funded the mainstream as you know. And then she got sort of tired of them and impatient with the mainstream organization because it wasnt really making a difference. And she felt that alice paul could. But alice paul was getting attention for Different Things than celebrity or fashion. She was getting attention for radical, controversial tactics. Judy just a quick followup to that. If these women had wanted to make big contributions, did they have the ability to do that . Did they have enough control over the money in their household to do that . Johanna i would hesitate to make a global statement about that but i would guess that most of them, yes. Most of them did and most of them did make contributions. I mean, alice paul, as elizabeth said, had i mean, alva belmont basically supported alice paul, paid her salary for her whole life and i was just i had this magical event last sunday, almost as magical as this at Woodlawn Cemetery in the bronx. They called and they said, i dont know if you know this, but many of the women you write about are buried here and wed like you to come speak and i was delighted. And they said, and were going to invite the descendants. I was like, oh, my god, what if i got something wrong. [laughter] johanna but it was a charming really a charming event. And afterwards i asked to go to the mausoleum where alva belmont is buried and on her death, alva put in her will that she wanted to be buried with a suffrage procession at her funeral. She wanted a female to officiate but they couldnt, i guess, find one. Everything else she asked for there were 1500 people at the funeral. Alice paul was there. Harriet stanton blache, kristable pankhurst came from london. Margaret sanger was there. She had a stellar sendoff and she had requested that a suffrage banner accompany her to her mausoleum and be installed next to her grave and alice paul, according to the cemetery officials, is the one who planted it there and it hangs there still. It is in deep disrepair and they are hoping to get the New York Historical society to restore it. But it was it was a sign to me of how deeply alice paul was indebted to alva belmont for her largesse. Judy any tidbits from the descendants . Johanna Elizabeth Cady stantons great, great granddaughter, Pauline Jenkins she came and we just had a ball. The historian of the cemetery put us in a golf cart and drove us around to the key bob burial sites. Judy this was at night . Johanna no, no. [laughter] judy it wasnt yet halloween. Johanna the historian for the cemetery insisted that we stop at mrs. Mackies grave which has fallen into serious disrepair. Its sort of chiseled off, you can hardly read the encryption on the tombstone. And she insisted that i stand behind the tombstone and have a picture taken. She said you have rescued her. And i was just johanna, is there a high Society Origin Story about who when and why the suffragists decided to wear white at their parades . Johanna there may be but i dont know what it is. I do know that Harriet Stanton blache was very into the optics and there has been criticism in 1911 of the galleying by the suffrage parade in getting organized so in 1912 she issued orders like a general issuing orders to the troops. You will march on time, you will all wear white. Macys had suffrage paraphernalia. They were all told some things never change, right . And so she was the one who really instilled in them a need to show discipline. And its a funny thing for us to think about but somehow male voters who were going to judge or male legislators, who were going to judge whether to grant women the right to vote would notice promptness or uniforms. But harriet thought it was important to showcase discipline. And you know, this is not this is really a tangent, but a similar thing happens during world war i when many suffragists who had been peace activists decide to work in war relief because they feel it will convince the men that they are committed and entitled to the vote. Judy fascinating. Hi. Im wondering if many of these Society Women traveled to england and were influenced by the pankhursts and the movement going on in england at the same time. English women partially got the right to vote before us and others got the right to vote after we did. Judy everybody hear this question . Could you comment on their exposure to england . Johanna a marvelous crossatlantic conveyance of ideas throughout the movement, not just among the gilded. Many of the american suffrage leaders took tactical, particularly instruction from the british. The soap box speeches, the parades, the mass rallies. A lot of it was influenced by britain. But sometimes people ask me why are you calling them suffragists, arent they suffragettes, and the answer is that a british journalist had disdained the british activists by calling them suffragettes, little suffragettes and they decided to adopt the word as a badge of honor but the american activists were, again mindful of the reaction from american men who might have been threatened by the violence of the british. The british actually bombed buildings. There were heckling of politicians, assaulting m. P. s, including winston churchill. And they didnt want to import that so they went with the gender neutral term, suffragists i know was there someone else in line . I know that there were also women who opposed. The National Association in opposition to womens suffrage and senator james wadsworths wife was one and secretary of state lansings wife was one eleanor forest lansing maybe alice hay wadsworth, and mrs. Anderson, of Anderson House on mass avenue who called them remonstrands. Do you know anything about them . Johanna there were quite a few of them and especially quite a few of them in this circle. And the first chapter of the book deals with the creation of a club in new york called the colony club because it became a site for debate within their class about whether suffrage would be good for women of social standing or not, whether they were better off with moral or bedroom influence. And there was also a fear among both men and women that if women got into the dirty corrupt cigar ridden business of politics, it would coarsen them, it would make them less feminine it would threaten the home. All of these things were part of the mantra of what was called the antis. And in the book, i have several examples of sisters who differed on the issue some being anteyes and some being pros. Part of the thinking of the anteyes was antis, was a more elitist view that if you extended the vote to all women you would be expanding the pool of women who were not of their class, women who were working women and immigrants and they really didnt support that. Judy sounds familiar to today. Johanna they actually called it they werent for universal suffrage, they were for educated suffrage. Judy one last question before we wrap up. As a reporter, im curious about the role the press played in all this. You talked about this at the outset but they did this as you say mindful that they were going to be covered. So what role did the press play in their ability to be effective or not . Johanna thats a delicious question actually. You know, one of the things that i tripped over early and that always bemused me a little is that the New York Times was famously antisuffrage. And their editorials were more biting and ridiculing than any others. They just sort of led the train. But there is an evolution. You can see the press turn at some point in the mid 1910s and maybe its the younger people. I didnt delve into the lives of the reporters as much. But theres a coming understanding sometimes i think about social change as someone mentioned that there were women voting in the states. And that is a wonderful reminder, that the states sometimes serve as an incubator for social change and that by 1912, there are 1. 3 million women voting in this country and by 1916, Woodrow Wilson does not get reelected without their vote. And the other thing that you can see about social change is that it just takes time. Theres this evolution of Public Opinion. What is once radical, like in our time, gay marriage or medical marijuana or death with dignity statutes. It takes time to acclimate the mainstream, the middle however you want to think about it and thats what happened in this case, as well. Judy it is a fascinating book. I encourage all of you to dig into it if you havent already. Lets thank johanna. Gilded suffragists. It. Johanna will be signing books. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] announcer history bookshelf features americas best known history writers of the past decade talking about their book. Youre watching American History tv all weekend, every weekend, on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. If they its a relaxed and tanned chief executive attending his First Press Conference since newport. On the congo, he believes the u. N. Has taken a step forward on the road to peace. On cuba, he declares any attempts to set up a communist satellite in the western hemisphere would call for action. When asked if he would go to the people if congress blocks his legislative program, the president replies. Possibly im doing it right
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.