Us online. Tonights discussion of womens suffragists and the men who supported them, the suffrage gents and their role is part of the series related to our special exhibit rightfully hers. Our partners are the 2020 womens Vote Centennial Initiative and the one woman, one vote 2020 festival. We thank them for their support. Our special twibt tells the story of womens Voting Rights. To sure these they had to win allies among men in influential positions. It was men who sat in the state legislatures that would ratify or reject the 19th amendment whos centennial we now celebrate. When it opened in our gallery last may guests at the opening reception were offered a yellow rose pin as they entered. That evoked the badges worn by members of the mens league for womens suffrage. To many guests this nod to the role that men played came as something of a surprise. Tonight were going to take a look at those suffrage gents and their contributions to the Voting Rights struggle. And its my pleasure to welcome nancy tate to the stage. Since 2015, nancy has served as the cochair of the 2020 womens Vote Centennial Initiative and is also on the board of the turning point memorial. From 2000 to 2015 she served as the director of the league of women voters. She served as the chief operating officer of the National Academy of public admin strags, department of energy, department of education, and the office of economic opportunity. Please join me in welcoming nancy tate. [ applause ] well, thank you. Its wonderful to be here, especially at the national archives, since they have opened this really lovely exhibit on women and the vote. Its called rightfully hers, american women and the vote. I myself have toured the kpiebt twice. I encourage everybody to come and see it too. She mentioned, im the coy chair of the womens vote sen Term Initiative and former executive director of the league of women voters of the United States. The league is one of the cofounders of the womens vote sen Term Initiative. And that group which in shorthand is wbci was formed as an information sharing collaborative of the Many Organizations and scholars who are working in this area. We want to celebrate the anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment which will be 2020. And in doing that woe want to shed light on the powerful but little known stories behind that very long and hard struggle to win the vote. The league itself was founded in 1920 by carie chatman cat who was the head of the largest suffrage organization, the National American womens suffrage organization. And the league under her guidance was formed six months before the amendment actually passed. The league therefore the league is having its own 100th anniversary next year. There is a league in every state and approximately 700 cities and counties around the kreentd. The league has been spending nearly 100 years now continuing the fight for full equality for all americans, and we do that through both education and advocacy. Let me just say a few more words about the 2020 womens vote sen serchl initiative. We work to establish and connect people, networks all around the country, girl scout troops, universities, any organization interested in learning about our suffrage history and how they can be part of the celebrations that they may even want to create themselves next year. Here in the d. C. Area, these Educational Programs that we put on with the archives and other groups is the main thing that we undertake. So tonight as debra said, this particular evening is part wbcis women in the vote symposium series. This was the fourth one we have done here at the archives and we hope to do at least one more in 2020. But when we picked the topics, each one of these focuses on some of the littletold stories about what went on to enable women to finally get that vote and all of the panels, including this one, will look at how some of these lessons show relevance to the issues of today. As many of you know, the 72year fight for womens suffrage is a powerful historical story and it can be used to enhance our understanding of our own times and how to navigate it. You can learn more about wbci by visiting our website, facebook, instagram and twitter, using the hashtag 2020centennial. Im pleased to introduce tonights panel. Im going to call them up by name. So come on up, ladies. We have our moderator, betsy fisher martin, who is the executive director of women in Politics Institute and american university. [ applause ] brook kroger, who is the author of the suffrage gents, how women used men to get the vote [ applause ] Joe Hanna Newman whos the author of gilded suffragists. And susan ware who is the author of why they marched. [ applause ] so betsy, i it urn it over to you. Thank you very much. Welcome, everyone. Really nice to be here with you today. So we have a special treat. Three terrific experts and i will tell you just personally i had a wonderful time reading and learning so much about this issue in preparation for tonight. So im excited to for you all to hear it as well. Brook, let me start with you. Your book tells the story of rich and powerful men mainly in new york that came together to help women earn the right to vote. Take us back to 1908, and tell us what brought these men together for the movement and how did they first come together to form the mens league for womens suffrage . Its a pretty good story. Starting around that time, ann compton sanderson who had been imprisoned in britain came to the United States. Because shed been in jail she snuck in thru canada causing quite a big stir. And she lectured around the country. And one of her themes was, how pathetic the wealthy women of america were in terms of understanding how to engage in a political process and further how the men of england had been very supportive of women in their fight for the vote and nothing of this nature wads going on here. This was in the press and very much in peoples consciousness, at least people in certain circles. Around the same time, Anna Howard Shaw wrote to oswald garrison ballard who was the editor of the nation magazine and new york evening post. Thats a nice combination. It was at the time. He was also the son of fanny garrison ballard who was an mile an hour suffragist and a grandson of an abolitionist and suffragist. She wrote to him remembering when he was at harvard he had made a wonderful speech at the massachusetts suffrage organization and wanted him to speak. He wrote back saying hes taxed to the limit of the strength, didnt think he could commit to anything like that nature, but that he was thinking it would be a very good idea, and i think this was in the zblietist. A group of men would come together to lend their names and trot up to albany or washington and speak to legislatures and politicians if the need arose. She wrote back and said that this was not a new idea, that these suffrage organization, which at this point was very much in the dole drums, had had the idea before and in fact there actually was a mens Suffrage League that started in 1874, 75, in the east vil anl, met a few times and fell out of memory. She said the men who had been willing to engage are so full of isms, its the last thing we need. The men we really need, you, oswald, never seem to have the time for our cause. So he wrote back, and he said, yp of course im paraphrasing, he said a group of men could be found who would do this work as long as there is someone to do the heavy lifting. And so some time passed and she writes back again and of course in perfect womens style says, and well do all the work to get this organized. And to his enormous credit, he said that is not a good idea. The more Strategic Plan would be for us to form this ourselves, providing we can find someone to do the work. And that would be the way to make this really effective. So he summons rabby steven weiss and john dewy of column bea professor, and they dewys student at columbia was max eastman, a philosophy student, trying to have a writing career, short of funds, living down in the village, and he becomes the secretary treasurer of the organization. His charge was to put together a list to keep this very secret and put together a list of 100 names that would just wow the world, from every profession, clergy, professors, names that america knew, and then announce this as a group that was organized to promote the suffrage cause. And so he gets to work. He gets the help of his mother, reverend anniss ford eastman whos from upstate. Theyre writing letters. Theyre going everywhere. Its unimaginable with ten, 15 noupz newspapers at the time, someone would not get wind of this. Of course the New York Times did and runs a very, very chiding front page article with the headline that was something like, mens voices to join the so prain oe chorus for womens votes. And then it names all these people whos names they had gotten wind of. And there were only 25 at that point. One the director of bellview hospital resooind, he was so embarrassed. Eastman was mortified. But he had recruited George Foster pea body who had become the mainstay. He said dont worry about it, by the time we announce everyone will have forgotten this. That is what happened. By november he didnt have 100 names, he had 150 names. They had their first meeting in early november. By january they had produced their first booklet with all these names and addresses listed with their charter and constitution. By later in the year, they gave their first banquet, 600 people, to honor ethel snowden, the wife of the british mp. This was elite in its c construction. Later they invited all men of all sorts. Having this male support was key. That leads us im sure someone else can tell the story of the parade. They march as a group of 89 men in top hats and bowlers in the second suffrage parade in may of 1911 where they are pillaried and mocked and just ever sort of insult is hurled. And they embrace this. It galvanizes them. They are no longer just offering their names. They are really ready for work. Johanna, why was this so controversial to have men . And what did they they were ridiculed in a lot of cases . I did want to pick up on brooks point. So there were 89 men in the 1911 parade. One year later in 1912, there were one thousand men. So thats how much the movement grew in a very short period. And a year later they were in 35 states and bringing in tens of thousands. And one of the men who marched, i was just looking for this quote, was rabby weiss. Rabbi weiss was a major progressive. He often lectured in the progressive causes, those isms that you spoke of. There was a time of fervent, debate among students at columbia and in max eastmans circle in greenwich village. Is capitalism the right thing . Should we look at socialism . Should we explore free love . It was everything imagine a time where everything was up for debate. And rabbi weiss participated in the 1912 parade, where many of the men he knew from elite circles were in their clubs, looking down on fifth avenue, hurling insults, as brook suggested. Those guys were rolling their eyes. They were. On the street. He wrote, i dug out his diary and he wrote of the mockery that he encountered that day. For a few moments, i was very warm and took off my hat. Whereupon someone shouted, look at the longhaired susan. Some of the other delightful exclammations that greeted us were, whos taking care of the baby . Or flossie, dear, arent they cute . Look at the molly kodles. Another male suffragist or another husband as they were called was joerchl middleton. He recalled hecklers crying, take that handkerchief out of your cuff, oh you gay desiever, you forgot to shave this morning. So i think we have there some suggestion of why it was so controversial. Because it disrupted this gender role expectation that men had. And throughout the 1910s, what i think happens is that theres a succession of events that help to normalize the idea of women voting. And you know, the great fear among men after all, the only voters here, the only people eligible to vote for womens suffrage, either as voters in their state on referenda, or as members of legislative committees or lawmakers in congress, there was this great fear that politics would harden women and emass cuelate men and also hurt the family. And a lot of things that the suffrage leaders did in those years was to reassure the public that women could be in political life and still maintain their femininity. It probably is worth saying somewhere that men have always stood some men have always stood with women. There was a famous judge in massachusetts in the American Revolution who wrote to john adams and suggested that they consider universal suffrage. So here we have at the founding some agitation forever women to have the vote. After the civil war, when Elizabeth Cady stanton and susan b. Anthony split the Womens Movement apart by vowing they will not support the 15th amendment, which remofbz the barriers to black men voting, they wont support it unless women are also included, and this horrifies the other women who start a rival organization. So for 20 years, you have these two rival groups working at crosspurposes. And but one black man named Robert Purvis stood up for Elizabeth Cady stanton and stunz b. Anthony in this rather unexpected decision to fight the 15th amendment. And purvis said, if me daughter cannot have Voting Rights along with my son, i wont vote for it because she has a double curse of being a woman and a black woman. So i think, you know, we have to say that there are always some men who have stood with women and i just wanted to throw that into the conversation. Interesting. I think whats distinct in this particular era is that they organized. Absolutely. And celebrity endorsers, its always been back to thomas paine, john stuart, this was really a unique happening. I agree. What else is strange about it is that the few people in their memoirs who write about it at all write about the 1911 parade or the 1912, and the response from the crowds. I mean, that seems to be a very affecting experience. And vallard talks about it also, the only things he mentions. No one ever mentions the league by names. Only james laid laws owe bit wary mentions it probably his wife wrote it and she was a great suffragist. They never talked about it again. I wondered why, was it chifblrous to not take credit . Were they just the consummate allies as we would talk about today . Or was it insignificant in the history of these very active lives . And by the time they died six decades later, it wasnt an important aspect of who they were . Only, only laid laws and eastmans make any mention of it. Its kind of fascinating. George kreeole, as soon as he becomes head of the committee on public information, he is not talking about it at all. Because wilson of course wasnt supportive. So its interesting. Its interesting. Shunusan i want to get back the home life. A woman goes off and joins the Suffrage Movement, what does that mean for the home life and for the husband during that time . I think it really changes can really change all aspects of it, because if especially if a woman signs on to the Suffrage Movement, its kind of like having a religious conversion. And if shes all in, its like having a fulltime job. Its an unpaid job, but its fulltime. And this is likely something that she hasnt done before. And you could see how there would be a ripple effect, that the kind of wifely or daughterly duties that she might have done before like being there when the kids come home from school or being there to entertain at dinner, those things arent going to happen anymore. And i think that what we need to remember is that its not just if a woman says, okay, im going support suffrage. It can affect all kinds of other things in her life. It can affect her family of origin, who shes partnered with, her colleagues, it can affect where she lives, traflds, how she dresses. And so its a big commitment. And one of the plagss where you see it really hitting home literally is in suffrage marriages. You write in your book why they marched a married couple ray and Gertrude Foster brown, tell us about them. Ray and Gertrude Foster brown were very much a suffrage couple. She was head of the new york state womens suffrage organization, quite powerful position. And he was a journalist. And he wrote a book, a pamphlet, published anonymously, called how it feels to be the husband of a suffragette. And in that pamphlet you can tell that he is a true feminist. He supports womens economic independence and talks about how having a wife who does things beyond the domestic sphere is so much more interesting to have around than someone who just stays home and hes sort of saying all the right things. And so he puts on this wonderful public cheerful face of, this is great. This is what its like being married to a suffragette. And yet in private things are a little more complicated. She is off traveling. She goes to conventions. Shes giving speeches. Shes out every night. And hes at home. And hes missing her. So theres this sort of difference between the cheerful public endorsement of it and that sometimes on the home front its a little harder to make it work. And that hes the one whos really feeling left behind. This had happened once before in their marriage. She was a talented singer and musician and she had gone off on the road. Had a very successful kalier. And he then felt like he was being left behind. I think whats interesting is that both times they managed to work their way through it, and they stayed married until his death in 1944. And i think its just a good reminder that we always need to think about the personal as well as the political when were telling the story. Yeah, yeah. Brook, i want to ask you about the press and how the men were depicted in the press at the time. Well, first of all, as a curiosity, i mean it was interesting, so it made news. More importantly, the men who were involved initially made news, because they always made news. So it was these were people that were followed high profile. Followed for their business dealings, everything. Being followed for suffrage was an extra fill up for the movement because it drew attention. Another thing to be cognizant of is that a huge proportion of these men who were engaged from the beginning were editors, publishers, writers, poets, drama tifts, people who had media access. So they were also able to guide coverage. We were talking about katherine doer macky a couple minutes ago. Sun of the suffrage publishers was the publisher of harpers. So theres this four page puff piece spread about her when she starts her equal franchise society, which was a parallel organization to the mens league, also directed at attracting the elite women which johan nau can certainly talk more about than i can. And that kind of access to print, to having things published that were positive to a movement that for 70 years had been seen as doubty and dull and a lot of vir aggos, it wasnt really a group that was attractive in a celebritylike way. Theres a wonderful cartoon from 1911 i think it is where it shows two suffrage women, one who looks like a scold and one whos shapely and very attractive and a beautiful hat. And it says, you know, the type has changed. And part of that was this group that had now become part of the image. You even hear flattering decisions of anna shaws clothes. Its like, really . It was like that. Things had really quite changed. I think this part of the movement, that elite attraction had brought something that was needed. Yeah. You want to Say Something . Brook, looking at me, because my first book on this topic is called gilded suffragists, the new york social lights who fought for the vote and my conclusion on studying them was that they were the Oprah Winfrey of their day. That when they embraced this cause, it just gave a burst of energy to the concept. It popularized the movement. Many more recruits came in after they joined. There was just an excitement in the wind. I wanted to add, though, on the question of press, that most of the coverage was not favorable. And especially we mentioned earlier the New York Times. The New York Times was they were a more hostile News Organization than the times who greeted the men with editorialized, really veerlent editorials against what they were doing, sort of suggested that they didnt know their own way, you know, that they were a little misguided, perhaps they had been one editorial the times suggested that some of the men might have been trying to curry favor with female seam tress to make their suits or something. A great deal of hostility and then there were other papers like the lards who were very, very pro. There were others who were but previously they were all like that, so that was the big change. That you had this wave of positive response that started to create that turn. I think theres Something Else thats going thats sort of a general context for what your two books are about, which is your organization starts in 1909. Yours, 1908. The phrase i use is a kind of quickening of suffrage activism, right around that period, 1908 to 1910, where things really burst out into public in a way that for the first 70 years or so of the movement, it really was taking place in church parlors and lecture halls. It wasnt engaging the public. And for a variety of reasons, things really begin to pop. And it makes and then theres a sort of selffulfilling and then you have this escalation for the really the next ten years leading but i think the reason for that is that, as you said, until this period, basically suffrage people were talking to each other. It was, you know, preaching to the converted. And i think there was a dawning realization to get the world out. That you have to reach the public. And so in the 1910s, they start to use all the new science of public relations, weapons of spectacle, the public parades, all kinds of things. They had suffrage days at the polo grounds. They had women pilots dropping air dropping flyers from airplanes. They had marchers calling people at the baseball field they would have fans that said, be a suffrage fan. They tried all kinds of stuff. They just got savvy about public relations. What does the term suffragents come from . England. Its not a perjorative. There were lot of suffragetet is fraught in the United States. I noticed that when ray brown uses it in the title of his pamphlet. I think he was making a subtle jab at his wife, i dont know, but most american suffragists tried to distance themselves from the term because it was associated with the british movement, which was more willing to embrace violence against property, which is something that the United States Movement Never did, and very much wanted to draw those lines. So, you find i cant really think of hardly any instances where women in this country would call themselves suffragettes, but the term is used to describe them and it has a somewhat perjorative cast to it. You find it towards the centennial, suffragette is coming back and i find myself waging battles saying, no, no, no, thats not the right term. Even Hillary Clinton used it in her book. I wrote a letter and explained to her, as a fellow wellesley grad, why she shouldnt use it. She never responded. I think people dont know the difference. Maybe she didnt get the letter. Brooke, i wanted to ask you about the Financial Support that was significant in funding the suffrage fight, sometimes behind the scene and even from the grave, these titans of industry were funding the Suffrage Movement or their widows that would be eva belmont who divorced and widowed and used all that money towards the movement. Mrs. Frank wesley made back the money she lost, the precursor to the life magazine, beautiful pictorial publication. She made the money. When she died, gave 2 million to the movement. She wasnt even really a big activist but was obviously very supportive. That made a huge difference. Huge. And so did ava belmonts because all the headquarters were built by those funds. And a couple like the ladlaws and other new york couples were financially supported. They would do a challenge grant during the convention. Most of these men served on the finance committee and were very involved after the 1915 defeat in new york, there was a huge gearing up for the 1917 battle, which actually succeeded and was extremely important because when the suffrage amendment passed in new york in 1914, that brought 44 congressmen who were prosuffrage which gave wilson away with that much support in congress to counter the opposition from the south. So, all these things fed into creating that burst of activity through the decade that really did make the difference. You mentioned southbrook. What role did africanamerican men play . We could all talk about that. I think susie was going to. Yeah. Its very important as we think back about the history to Pay Attention to the large roles that africanamerican men, as well as africanamerican women, played in this movement. If you go back to seneca falls, theres Frederick Douglas with Elisabeth Katie Stanton supporting womens right to vote. He splits with her in the aftermath of the civil war over who will get priority about voting but he never loses his faith in the importance of votes for women and universal suffrage. And then if you think about someone like w. E. Dubois, especially as the editor of the crisis. If you read the crisis was the magazine of the color people founded in 1908 or 1909, it practically reads like a suffrage magazine. There are so many editorials hes writing. Theres a reason for that. Its because africanamerican men who fought so hard for in the civil war and then received the vote after the war only to have it taken away in the south by jim crow restrictions, they knew how important the vote was. And could see why it was important for women as well. Because all the arguments that were given against giving women the vote had also been used against men. And so dubois makes that point. Many others in the community do. Dubois makes another point, which is kind of an obvious one, but if women get the vote, black women get the vote, too. So i think its very important, as we tell these stories and we think about a movement, which has a reputation, rightly, for being freedom predominantly white and middle class, we cant keep the racist movement from acknowledging and making really front and center the contributions of both africanamerican women, which are so important, but heres a perfect case where putting the men in the story just adds so much, so im glad for that question. Johanna, i read in one of your papers a quote from frederi Frederick Douglas and he said, when i ran away from savory, it was for myself. When i stood up for the rights of woman, self was out of the question. I found a little nobility in that act. I think one of the more interesting questions about this discussion for me is motives. And Frederick Douglass i love that quote, so thank you for digging it up. For Frederick Douglass and those in the movement, there was a certain nobility in their act. When we get to the modern movement, the league, mens league, i see a couple of groups of people. The first are the what are called the bohemian sexual radicals. And these are max friedman and his friends down in the village. Max believes that women should have the vote because it will make them better lovers. There will be an equalizing of gender roles and women will stop being silly and men can stop being profligate and might get to a better relation. Floyd dell was never of his friends there who thought that women that the Womens Movement, really the feminist cause it would liberate men not to have to work. Because they wouldnt have to work. That there wouldnt be an obligation on their shoulders to support women and children. And they are quite enthusiastic. Max friedman calls suffrage the great fight for freedom in my lifetime. So, this is at a time of all these isms, hes saying suffrage is the main cause here. And but they soon lose i dont want to say they lose interest, but they leave the league. They start to leave the league by about 1912. Max says that he he prefers a cause where you can suffer a little for the good. And by 1912 is getting very mainstream. They sort of peel away. Most of the members of the club of the league are now Good Government reformers. These are people who join any movement to reform the public space. They join to rid city hall of corruption. To improve sanitation for immigrants. To improve working conditions for factory workers, and racial lynching in the south. They have myriad causes, but what i think they welcome women because it doubles their numbers. It makes their progressivism Even Stronger if women get the vote and can help. And so i think there are these people come to the cause for Different Reasons and i think one of the great lessons of the Suffrage Movement that what finally succeeds is a huge, broad umbrella thatk everyone from working class to celebrity socialites, librarians, actresses, professionals, housewives, men. Its just it conveys in its breadth public acceptance. If i can take just one more minute. I think one of the least studied aspects of the womens Suffrage Movement is the role of the states. You know, its a great lesson that social change begins at the grassroots level. And the states start rolling from the west. Wyoming is the first state in 1890. U 1893. By 1911 california becomes the fifth state. And it is an extremely close election in california. The suffrage initiative passes by one vote per precinct but the impact is huge because in the 1912 election, there are 1. 2 million women eligible to vote for president , and by 1916, four years later, analysts say that Woodrow Wilson would not have been reelected but for the votes of people in the womens suffrage states. So, theres this ground as well. And what happens when we get to the 19th amendment, i believe, is that women are no longer petitioning congress, please, please, please can we have the vote . Theyre coming as constituents and theyre saying, we have the power to vote you out of office. And theres another point that just if youre having a cocktail conversation about the 19th amendment and someone says, well, women one got the vote or were granted the vote, i always hate that, but, you know, in august, but you can say, well, actually, quite a few women were already voting and really does start in the west and move eastward, but, again, it is the role of the states. The flip side of that is that very few africanamerican women were enfranchised by the 19th amendment. Thats because most of them still lived in the American South where they were restricted by voting by the same tools that kept black men from voting. Lit racy tests and poll tax and things like that. We need to keep both perspectives in mind when people say very easily, women got the vote. Its a little more complicated than that. Brooke, you spend a lot of time talking about new york and the significance of that. Was that 1917 . 1917, yes. And why was that so significant . Well, as i said before, because it was the first really big delegation to come into congress and create a change. It was the first state east of the mississippi or missouri, depending how you illinois, but illinois had come were not a geography club. Something like that. I think its east of the missouri to come in, which created this avalanche of change. And it was understood if it had failed in new york, that would have been the end. And it gave wilson cover, in a sense, to start changing his mind. He also used the states argument. This is the states issue to we still hear that these days. Thats still that avoided the question of the south for him. This gave him a way to come forward and actually help change the minds and help make this happen. Fast forwarding to ratification in the state of the tennessee, harry t. Burn, how who wants to tell us that story . Its a great story. We volunteered her. Go ahead. Harry was a young legislator in the tennessee senate. The setup for this is, of course, to get an amendment a constitutional amendment through congress, took the votes of twothirds of the house and twothirds of the senate. To ratify . No, to get it through congress. That was the congress role. That happened in 1919. But to get it ratified by the states took threefourths, so suffrage leaders took about a year and a half going from legislature to legislature trying to get ratification. At first it was going along swimmingly, you know, a drum roll of approval. Some some five i think three states rushed to be the first to ratify and they now stand in history together because nobody made it in ahead of the others. Same thing happened with the e. R. A. But then and then they parade through the states. By then theres a ground swell of what we call the anits, antisuffrage forces also see this as the big battle of their lifetime. And they marshal for it. And none more powerful, of course, than the liquor lobby that fears that the prohibition, the temperance movement, which was fueled really by women, that women have other things up their sleeve. Thats just the opening wedge and theyre going to come with all this social legislation thats going to be very costly to their business and others businesses. Everyone is marshalling, descending on the state capitols and they get to 35, but they need 36. And everyone understands that tennessee is going to be the last state. They either make it in tennessee or they dont. And everyone goes there. Many of the key players take rooms at the Hermitage Hotel in nashville. The liquor lobby takes i think its the eighth floor and they call it the jack daniels suite if theyre offering at least not a lot of bribes but liquor. And the vote is extremely close. Harry is one of those who is down as an anti. This is signified by the wearing of colored roses for the antis and i think the pros wore yellow. And all of a sudden on many procedural votes, he changes his mind and he votes yes and tips the thing. And he pulls out a letter from his pocket that basically says, my mother asked me to vote. And he hadnt he said he was sympathetic to the cause but he was going to vote no because that is how his constituents had made very clear to him they wanted him to vote. But he got this letter from his mother and it touched his heart and he voted and he voted the way he did. He was then hounded. He was accused of taking bribes. The antis were very powerful in tennessee. They actually filed a lawsuit. This is a little known story. I hope someone is looking at it more closely. They actually filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutalty of the 19th amendment. That ran through the courts and it was rejected. 1922. But hear said it tickled him to contribute to history and to make his party look good. So, we all have the right to vote because a young man listened to his mom. Thats a great story. Susan or brooke, do neither of you have another man to highlight who you thought is really the one of the most important people we maybe dont know about . I do. I think laidlaw, he was the National President of the mens league. He could count his lineage back to colonial days through 50 different lines. He was on the board of what became standard poors. He was a real player. His wife was an important new york suffrage. If i can read the Mission Statement of the league, let me see if its here. I can see it, which would be a trick. I can read it for you if you cant. While brooke is looking for that, i just go ahead. I can add that laidlaw, when he led men at the 1912 parade, he was asked why they were marching. He said, we are here to give moral support to the women and courage to the men. And i always thought that was quite poignant. Heres the statement in full. He goes, there are many men who inwardly feel the justice of equal suffrage. This was written in around 1913. But who are not ready to acknowledge it publicly unless theyre backed by numberses. There are other men who are not even ready to give the subject consideration until they see that a large number of men are willing to be counted in favor of it. The imagine who is so prejudice that he will not consider it at all will pass away with this generation, if not sooner. The usefulness of the mens league politically to women constitutes one of the unanswerable arguments for womens suffrage. Legislators are mainly responsible to voters and to voters he only. In the majority of states in this country, earnest, determined women are bee sieging the legislators, endeavoring to bring about the submission of a womens suffrage amendment to the people. How long and how burdensome. But if a wellorganized minority of men voters demand equal suffrage legislation from the legislatures, they will get it. After that it is only a question of propaganda and tda and the m leagues come in again on the first proposition of moral support. Thats pretty great. Its pretty great. Susan, does anyone come to mind for you . I would give a shout out to a man named fred nathan. I think its partly because hes married to one of the characters in my book, maude nathan, who is a prominent suffragist. Shes in my book because i use her relationship with her center, annie may meier, who was an antisuffragist and also the founder of barnard college. It introduces this interesting sibling rivalry but reminds us that not all women were supportive didnt want to support women getting the vote. But maude and frederick had another one of those suffrage marriages and they did things like a crosscountry automobile trip in like 1912 at a time when there were no crosscountry roads. I remember he turns up at one of the International Members leagues. All three of them. The international suffrage smoouchlt very important. And when we finally get to this critical turning point that weve all talked about of the 1917 november 1917 referendum in new york city, he is quite ill and pushed in a wheelchair or something equivalent so that he can cast his vote for the suffrage amendment. I think he belongs in there. Definitely. He was one of the original figures. Important. Brooke, as you alluded to earlier, theres not a lot known about these folks. When you were writing your book, how did you go about finding the information, the stories you have been men . You mention they didnt boast about it. It wasnt in their obits necessarily. Interestingly, historians have not picked up on this. When i started, there were a page, a paragraph, there werent even academic papers that did much more than mention it in passing. I went into fultonhistory. Com, these stories of buried newspapers to find and trace where there were speeches, what they were doing. I almost did a full chronology of the ten years to figure out that it really was a movement and there was more to it than celebrity endorsement, which is of course what they set out to do but clearly became deeply engaged. But quietly. Quietly. We have to say, as i got the idea to write this and put out a proposal, most of the response was, who cares what the men did . It was a very typical response. What was your response to that . Well, what was there to say . Unprintable. It took a while. It took a while. Johanna . When you were talking about the men that should be included in this conversation, my mind went to Teddy Roosevelt. Why . Because he was him and road row wilson. The disciple of manliness, vigor, someone would argue we went to war in 1898 because he thought it was going to help the vigor of the male population amid a period of feminization of politics. Of course, at the beginning he is not very interested in womens suffrage. When hes first asked about it order the turn of the century, he says, this you know, women will get the vote when they ask for it. Until then, the whole thing bores me. Lets move on to something interesting. Only in 1912 when hes running to recapture the presidency and needs the votes of women as he embraced the cause, but what i love about him, and i end my book with it is that after women get the vote in new york in 1917, in 1918, Theodore Roosevelt is setting off for the polls and he gets in the car and he finds his wife is already there. And he says in that wonderful Teddy Roosevelt accent, edie, what are you doing here . Duh. And she said, im going to vote. And the enormity i mean, it was one thing for this man to embrace suffrage as a political endorsement, but for him to understand the enormity of the social change that he had reluctantly and belatedly endorsed, to me it was like witnessing the human toll of human change. It was a generation of men who had to decide. I dont think the suffragettes suffragents were ever the majority but they were activists. Laidlaw once said, they could make it easier, happy or work. Things that were very difficult for women to accomplish. They could just do. Take something as simple as a meeting at the lotus club, one of the exclusive mens clubs in new york where women reporters were coming to report and couldnt get in the door. Laidlaw could immediately open his offices and his cafeteria so that the meetings could be held. There just was an ease of being able to fix things that women didnt have. I think their role at the end of the day was to normalize the id idea. To make it a natural part of everyday life. To make what, voting . Yeah. V women voting. Women voting. I think whats endeared me to the mens leagues, and this comes out of my training as a womens historian, where you see all of these organizations that are founded in the 19th century, mens organizations, and then there are womens auxiliaries, which often do all the work and raise all the money and are absolutely central but they dont get the credit. And what has always tickled me about the mens leagues is that they really were the auxiliari s auxiliaries. They embraced that role. So its a model of role reversal. They actually took direction. They actually use the term, when they get thanked at the 1907 victory and laidlaw comes up, he says, we have learned to be auxiliaries. Thats pretty good. Doesnt happen all that often, so lets give them some credit. In fact, the governor of new york, whitman at the time was asked after the 19d 17 vote, who won womens suffrage . And he said, well, i thought the men of new york had a lot to do with that. I mean, there were always newspaper and magazine articles at the time saying this faction or that faction of women had actually won the thing. Whitman is reminding you had that the voters were men. We have some time for questions. We have two microphones on each side here. If anyone has a question, please make your way to the microphones. Oh, i see a gentleman here with a question. Happens to be my husband. An auxiliary. Thanks for taking the questions and thanks for the great presentation. The question i have and the moderator wasnt bad either. The question i have is you touched on this at the outset of this, but why the west . Why is it, do you think, that this first came out of wyoming and then obviously california and colorado . Was it the sort of pioneer spirit the fact that the genders were more equal in the west whereas more stratified in the traditional east or what was it that sort of really took fire, prairie fire, in the west . Thank you. I think in a lot of cases rather than generalizing about the west, we need to look at specific states. There very often are stories within those states that have to do with political alignments and whether theyre third parties and basically whether someone believes that giving women the right to vote is going to help them having said that, one of the things thats the most constructive if youre trying to get a handle on suffrage history is to look at a map of the United States and see this the west where you have these victories and then theres this black hole of the south where there are no victories and the industrial northeast where there are very few until new york. So the geography is really important. As an historian, im uncomfortable using phrases like Pioneering Spirit but i just think thank goodness for that because once you had all these women voting in the west, number one, the world hasnt come to an end. Thats important to show people, but it also gets people used to the idea of women voting and you also have increasing numbers of women who actually vote and then they can be a Political Force both in their own states and in this national movement. So, within the west, we might still be i just want to add that there were i think there were some political motives by men who saw adding women to the roles in the west as an opportunity to double their influence, to get more representatives in congress, but i also think they needed women to come populate very sparsely populated states. That makes sense. They also say that the strategies in the west were stronger, that they were very good at giving arguments that both appealed to the converted and could still appeal to those who hadnt made the change. There are several papers that try to deal with why that was possible. [ inaudible ] not until 1917. But, again, it is a Western State that elected a woman to congress and thats not a fluke. I wanted to ask you something about the west. You were talking a lot about wealthy men in new york but things happened out west. Did you have anything comparable, places out in like San Francisco or los angeles. Yes. In california there was sorry. But the other thing i wanted to ask you is, you were talking about they did things behind the scenes and you also said this became a more popular because you had the celebrities and people of influence endorsing it. It sounds kind of contradictory. Im saying there were people in the news already, so that became a vehicle for more attention to the suffrage noouchlt a way that was palatable. That was the point. I see. But california had afternoon Important League by a man named john braley. He founded it. It was coeducational but felt it was the most important work of his life. And massachusetts had an Important League. Chicago had an Important League. 35 states had mens leagues. As i said, through the womens journal vehicles, this was heavily promoted, that women were asked to encourage men the men in their lives to become very much a part of this. Hi. I was going to ask you how you think a man in an average American Household would have reacted to the idea of women voting . Not well. What do you think . Im not really sure. I would have hoped it would have it wouldnt have been, oh, no, thats a terrible idea, but i also dont think everyone would have been, oh, yeah, lets do that right now. I think if you want to take a broader look at the question of why this bias exists, you can in my new book i go back to the American Revolution because i dont think suffrage begins in 1848 at seneca falls. I think it begins in that revoluti revolutionary moment when someone women are agitating for the vote where new jersey gives women and free blacks the vote if they have the same amount of property that men voters have. And there is this what one historian has called a revolutionary backlash where all of that gets taken off the table and womens are asked to be the new generation of patriots about this new republic. And many of them do this willingly. Many of them do it to suggest they get a better education. They are instrumental to oppose Andrew Jacksons indian removal policy. They are instrumental in the abolition cause to end slavery. But i think by the time you get to this period were talking about, the 1910s, there is this gender construction, this paradigm of gender roles where women arent to be the moral influence and men are the ones that are supposed to get down into the dirty, smokefilled, cigar rooms where politics takes place. There is this fear about what will happen if women go into that room. And i think it just takes public reassurance that he with have been talking about to convince the public. Again, if you look at movements for social change in our lifetimes, if you look at how gay marital equality happens, it starts at the grassroots. It starts at the states. And people have to be convinced the public has to be convinced. There are campaigns. There is losing campaign after losing campaign softens public opposition. And i think thats what happened here with the men. I will add to that. I think we need to remember that even though the vote doesnt seem like that scary a thing, how can you go to the polls once a year, but it was kind of seen often as an opening wedge and that if thats going to change, all kinds of things about womens role could change. For many that was seen as a positive thing, but for many others that would be seen as not a positive thing. We see that playing out through the rest of the 20th century and we see similar ideas on both sides of the equal rights bat e battle. So something thats minor, giving women the right to vote, which is not minor, it often stands for something much bigger. In this case, it is really womens equality in the modern world. Yes, sir. One of you mentioned there was a constitutional challenge to the amendment, but in general i thought that once an amendments approved, its basically instant. What surprised me is i was Googling Harry during your talk and he barely survived his reelection campaign. And i would have thought he would have been a shooin with, say, 50 of the voters in tennessee. So, why was he just why did he barely pass . Well, hes tennessee. I mean, you need to look at the political situation there and see why it would have been hard for him to not breeze to election. In terms of the constitutional challenges, it is possible to challenge. There were two that were filed very quickly, beside the ones in tennessee that held it up, where luckily within two years the Supreme Court ruled that there that the 19th amendment was and there couldnt be any constitutional challenges to it because that would have been a very poor start to womens emancipation equality if there was a shadow of being knocked down by the Supreme Court. So they moved very quickly. I know i have read those two court cases. Theyre going to be in the library of america. An thon of womens suffrage that i edited but i cant for the life of me remember the details of those cases. One other thing, and thank you for having read them. Ive not done that. But i its a sad note, really. I dont know if this is partly why harry burn had trouble subsequently but the 1920 election is the first one where women nationally, black and white in the north, are eligible to vote and the voeing is not good. Very few of them percentagewise come to the polls and there are a lot of reasons that we could talk about. The magazines of the day, you know, there are all sorts of headlines about apathy, the apathy of women and so forth. Its possible that that played a role in tennessee as well. There are, unfortunately, there is a perception that once women got the vote, it really didnt matter. There are articles with names like womens suffrage is a failure. I think one of the ones i found most interesting is from 1924 by ida tarbo, who was antisuffragist. And she came back quite impressed with what women were doing with the vote. They arent voting at the same levels as men. This is something most women have not done. It takes a while to learn how to be a voter, which is why the league of womens voters is so important. But i think one one of the things i hope the centennial celebrations can help us see is this continuum of womens political activism that starts well before the passage of the 19th amendment and doesnt end in 1920. Women dont just go home and go to sleep and not do anything. You see it continuing through groups like the league of women voters. You see it in the new deal with women like eleanor roosevelt. You see it in the 1950s with the civil rights movement. Its an ongoing continuum. What i try and remind myself sometimes is to think, couldthy have done that without the vote . Or try to imagine the 20th century without the vote. Its been less than 100 years that women have had it. And, so, what i try and do is take the long view, think of it as the long 19th amendment stretching between 1920 because i think the roots of it all much broader than that. No one should feel bad about the e. R. A. Having just passed. Its just begun. 100 years. Do you think men are more interested in the role they played in womens suffrage . We could take a poll. Brooke, do you think i didnt really hear becoming more interested. In learning what they did . I dont know. But when you give when you give lectures the audience would be like this, a good selection of men who seem to be interested. Ive had maybe one or two hostile comments, not many. Usually from women, not from men. Just concerned about bringing up any credit to the men. Men sometimes find that offensi offensive. Of course, the suggestion is this is never a mans victory. Its to recognize that social change requires everyone. And i think whats interesting about this movement as opposed to some other movements for social change is that its a one issue thing its not a complicated question. Its single. Its not like bringing up abortion or birth control. This is simple and straight forward and a moral wrong. How can a citizen who has to pay taxes, who has to go to jail for wrongs, who has to abide by contracts, who has to do every single thing any other citizen has to do and has no say in determining what happens. Its just a moral wrong. Thats interesting. Thats easy to get on board, in a way. Or those that didnt agree would have to pass away because its just wrong. It took so long. It was really susan b. Anthony who narrowed elizabeth candy stanton wanted a broad agenda. She wanted divorce reform. She wanted church you know, the bible was under attack. Never would have happened. She had a broad agenda, property rishgts educational opportunities. And it was susan b. Anthony who said, no, were just going to focus on the vote. She was probably right. To your point, this sort of validates her. Because there are so many horrific things going on, that womens issues tend to get insubordinated even by women. In is horrible but this is not as horrible as fill in the blank. That seems to happen over and over again. Still. But i do think one of the things ive noticed as i go out on the hufftings for the suffrage centennial, i think ten years ago if we were doing this, you would be you would talk about voting. As an unimportant, not such a big deal. I think recent events have opened all our eyes to the importance of voting and Voting Rights and voting suppression in a way that make what could have pen a quaint centennial celebration much more relevant and much more timely here here. Then we would have expected. I think we have time for one for question. I wonder if you know when did women get the right to or keep their salaries if they were working . Was that part was that part of the movement before the right . Was that something i mean, at some point we got the right to own property and to keep your salary if you worked. When was that. Well, one important new york is a very important state in a lot of these legal reforms. And in 1848 they passed a married womens property act that meant that married women could hold property. In 1860 they passed a law the Legislature Passed a law that said that womens women could control their own earnings. And this is new york. This is new york. So what when the federal . Was there ever a federal law that said that women had the right without their husbands permission to earn money and keep their own money . To me this is an incredibly important thing. I cant believe it got subordinated to be able to vote. It goes with it or before it, doesnt it . The right to keep your own money . I think most states, by the time womens suffrage passed in 1920, that in most states women would have been able to control their own earnings. There were many other but you dont know. None new york, if you worked with your husband, your husband got everything. You had no entitlement. We can do one more quick question. We are fortunate to have six wonderful conversations going on. We can feel the momentum thats going on here. Is that happening in other places across the country . Oh, god, yes. It is. Absolutely. Do you have a favorite exhibit youve seen somewhere . To me the most exciting thing is theyre happening in all of the states. I just have to give a shout out to the league of women voters who are playing such a central role on this. Also the state many of the states have set up commissions and this is its a wonderful networking opportunity for people to find each other and also doing what we all try and do as historians, which is take a very inspiring but complicated historical story to a broader public who really doesnt know very much about suffrage history. And i think its a story that needs to be more widely known. And i think that a lot of state efforts going on on going to get the world out there. I just hope it will encourage all kinds of interests in learning more about it and the place they can start is by reading all of our books, right . The one i have heard about that charmed me the most was on new years day at the rose parade, there is going to be a float about womens suffrage. Oh, nice. They have invited people to dress as suffragists and walk behind the float and sort of recreate the moment weve been talking about here tonight. And i just think its its a wonderful coming together of our history with a cultural icon of our present. We run a site called suffr e suffrageandthemedia. Org out of new york, so anything that has a suffrage aspect to it that rises to the surface we put up. We change it almost weekly. So, theres almost always new material. It has one of the best search elements. Can you search by post suffrage, suffrage era, academic, not academics, movies. Come, its all free. Lets thank our terrific panel. [ applause ] and thank you all for coming. This is American History tv on cspan3, where each weekend we feature 40 hours of programming exploring our nations past. Frank, i wanted to tell you, i hang my head in shame, particularly at apartheid and what i would say is very unfair personalized reporting of these fellas. And i think that you ought to know that opinion because youre going to be disappointed in me down the road if i didnt tell you that. Well im just telling you frankly that i think your industry is wrecking all of us. Well, thats pretty heavyhanded. You can imagine what it was like for the journalist the next day. Im sure he wasnt going to call the journalist the next day that offended him in the press conference and the fact theyre wrecking the country, very disturbing, very disturbing. Were hearing that today. The press is the enemy of the american people, according to president trump. You know, the press is not the enemy of the american people. The press is out there doing work for the american people. Sunday night on q a, patty rhule talks about the tension between american president s and the press. Watch cspans q a sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. This is American History tv on cspan3. Heres whats coming up the next few hours. Next, historians discuss africanamerican migration over the past centuries and analyze the reasons black people have migrated and created their own communities across the u. S. At 2 45 p. M. Eastern on american artifacts, we tour the votes for women exhibit at the National Port rate gallery in washington, d. C. Thats followed at 3 50 p. M. Eastern by our series reel america. We feature a documentary called 444 days which chronicles the 1979 iran hostage crisis using footage shot by iranian students and the iran government. And at 5 30 p. M. And the 2 30 p. M. Pacific, we continue the look back 20 years to the iran hostage crisis, and with the perspectives of the former hostages, and that is what is coming up here on American History tv. Good evening, everyone. All right. I think that we have our technical difficulties are finished. And so id like to welcome you all to the opening, and id like to welcome you all to the opening plenary of the 104th meeting an convention of the association. Im lionel kimball, and it is my ho