- I'm Kari Borne, I'm from the Office
of Continuing Education at UW-Whitewater.
We host the Fairhaven Lecture Series each
semester and we have 10 to 12 lectures on a theme.
Each semester is a new theme and again, this semester,
we're talking about The Great War, World War I.
Today's presenter is Ashley Barnes-Gilbert.
Ashley is a lecturer in women's and gender studies.
She is a historian of women, gender,
and sexuality in The United States.
Her research explores brothels and their role
in the turn of the century Southern
and Midwestern river towns.
She received her PhD from the program in gender
and women's studies history at UW-Madison
as the George L. Mosse scholar of LGBTQ history.
Ashley teaches a wide variety of courses at UW-Whitewater,
including Introduction to Women's and Gender Studies,
Feminist Theories, Women, Race, and Ethnicity,
and Women and Work.
She has expertise in women's and gender history
and race and ethnic history of The United States.
Please welcome Ashley Barnes-Gilbert.
(applause)
- Thank you so much, Kari, can everyone hear me?
Is this sounding all right?
Alright, wonderful, so as Kari noted,
my name is Ashley Barnes-Gilbert.
I'm extremely excited to be here today
and share with you some of my love of women's history.
As a historian of women and gender,
my chief goal is to recognize and expand the understanding
of women's history and their lives in the past.
Notably, this is not always an easy task,
as women's lives have not been recorded in the same way
that men's lives have been,
and often, their role in key historical events
has been obfuscated or rendered invisible.
This thus I work to uncover the complexity
and contributions of women's lives in American history.
Their lives and contributions are often filled
with the expected roles as being wives and mothers,
but also their shaping of social movements,
activism, and the political electorate.
Typically, whenever you are engaging
in women's and gender history, you tend to change the timeline
of the stories that we're most often familiar with.
So when we look at things like war,
or presidential elections, the stories begin to change
when you explore the experiences of women,
because their contributions and experiences
are different than those of men.
In the 19th century, American women fought
for their voices to be heard equal to men's
on court issues ranging from slavery,
to employment conditions, to child labor laws,
to social welfare, to temperance, to education,
and the topic for today, suffrage,
or the right to vote.
Today, I'm going to tell you the story
of how suffragettes during World War I
fought for the right to vote in the face of incredible odds.
Arguably, one of the least known legacies
of World War I is the fact that it did
in fact advance women's right to vote,
particularly from the fraught relationship
between President Wilson, suffragettes,
and wartime activism during this time period.
But to understand how suffrage was advanced by World War I,
we must first examine the state of women's lives
and their roles in the 19th century,
and the long battle for equality.
So, as any true historian will do,
I'm going to start by giving you some context.
We're going to look at gender roles in the 19th century,
explore a bit of the activism
that many of these activists engaged in in the 19th century,
and then turn to the topic of World War I
and the fight for suffrage after 1917.
So we'll start by looking at some
of the gender roles of the time period.
During the 18th and 19th centuries in the Western world,
many believed that men and women
occupied inherently different spheres of the world.
This was called the separate spheres ideology.
Initially, the separate spheres ideology was utilized
to limit women's rights.
But female activists of the time period learned
how to manipulate the separate spheres analogy
to their advantage, or in some cases,
call for the destruction of separate spheres altogether.
To understand this, I want to explore the ideology
of separate spheres in more detail.
The ideology of separate spheres dominated thought
about gender roles in the late 18th century
through the 19th century in America.
And similar ideas influenced gender roles
in other parts of the Western world
and this conception of gender roles.
Essentially, there was an idea
that men and women occupied different spheres
and that women's place was in the private sphere.
This meant that they were in charge of,
and the leaders of, family life and the home.
Conversely, men's place was believed
to be in the public sphere.
This meant that they were supposed to be involved
in politics and economic world
which was becoming increasingly separate from the home
after the Industrial Revolution had progressed.
And they were supposed to be in charge
of all public, social, and cultural activities.
Together, a successful husband and wife pairing
created a picture-perfect harmony.
As he developed skills for business,
she was supposed to cultivate a complementary role.
It was meant to be a recipe for success
and it was quite popular.
As you can see here on this slide,
I have an example of how the separate spheres was taught
and perpetuated during the time period.
We see as historians the separate spheres discussed
in magazines, in letters, and in diaries
and this is one excerpt from a magazine,
called Godey's Lady's Book, from 1856.
In here, it says, "Without ignoring accomplishments
"or casting a slur upon any of the graces
"which serve to adorn society,
"we must look deeper for the acquirements
"which serve to form our ideal of a perfect woman."
She is, "The companion of man," and she
"should be able to thoroughly sympathize with him.
"Her intellect should be as well developed as his.
"We do not believe in the mental inequality of the sexes.
"We believe that man and the woman have each a work to do,
"for which they are specially qualified,
"and in which they are called to excel.
"Thought the work is not the same,
"it is equally noble and demands an equal exercise of capacity."
This was published in 1856.
It was meant to be advice, particularly for young women
who were entering into marriages
and trying to navigate their roles as wives and mothers
and companions to their husbands.
Importantly, what this quote indicates to us
is that in teaching the separate spheres ideology,
many at the time period did not necessarily believe
that men and women were unequal in terms of mental capacity.
Rather, they believed that men and women had different roles
that complemented one another.
And if women wanted to advance themselves,
they needed to do so solely for the purpose
of being the companion to their male partners.
This meant that if they wanted to, for example,
expand their intellectual prowess,
and start learning more and getting more of an education,
they should only do that if they were going to do it
to be better companions to their partners
and conversationalists with their husbands,
and it would turn them into know-it-alls,
or individuals who might make their husbands feel
that they were not the intellectual superior,
it would not be a good idea.
This is part of how we see the separate spheres ideology
being perpetuated.
There is much of talk about what it meant
to be a true man and a true woman during the 19th century.
A true man was concerned with success
and moving up the social ladder.
He was aggressive, competitive, rational,
and channeled all of his energy and time into work.
Conversely, a true woman was supposed to be virtuous.
Her four chief characteristics were meant
to be piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity.
She was seen as being the great civilizer
who created order in the home
and in return for her husband's protection,
financial security, and social status,
made sure that he could come to the home
and feel as though he had left all the work stresses behind
and lived in a lovely, civilized, domestic life.
The doctrine of separate spheres was often taught
and perpetuated through magazines and other sources,
and ultimately, many believed
that the doctrine of separate spheres was really
a true reflection of the innate gender difference
between men and women.
As historians today, we look back on this doctrine
and see that in fact, it is a social construction,
which means that we see that these rules were
not necessarily innately linked to one's gender,
but instead, taught through culture and society.
And many believed as a result of that
that we needed to understand
how men and women existed in the separate spheres
and how that particularly influenced the rights
that women held during this period.
So today, what we're going to talk about is
how many of these activists would lean in
to the separate spheres ideology in an effort to fight
for more equal rights for women during this time period.
'Cause as you might imagine,
the doctrine of separate spheres was often utilized
to essentially position women in a place of inequality
where they were often reliant upon their fathers
or their husband to have any sense of equality
in their social or political life.
So, according to the separate spheres
ideology of the 19th century,
women had little need for political rights,
such as involvement with the public sphere,
what seemed to be against their true nature.
And imagine, if you wanted to have the right to vote,
being told by those around you that trying to vote meant
that you were betraying the very essence of your womanhood.
That's often what many of these activists heard
during this time period.
Many argued that women should not vote
or work outside the home, or be involved in politics at all.
Because in so doing, they would betray their role as women
and possibly even destroy the home in the process.
Legally, many of these women did not have rights
at all during this time period,
and so, they started to agitate for more legal equality.
Particularly, they could not own
or inherit property,
they did not have the legal right to divorces.
They could not gain custody of their children
in the event of their husbands' deaths.
Particularly, for married white women during this period,
their legal existence was
entirely dependent upon their fathers or their husbands.
Subsequently, many women of the 19th century began agitated
for more equal rights, and they made several arguments
about why women should have equal rights to men,
including the right to vote.
And often, these arguments hinged
upon wrangling the separate spheres ideology
to expand women's access to the public spheres.
Specifically, it is the role of being the civilizer
that shaped their move
from the domestic sphere to the public sphere.
In fact, some of the first women's rights activists
of the 19th century entered into the public sphere
to fight for social reform, rather than women's equality,
at least at first.
These activists often argued
that women had an innate moral superiority to men,
and thus they not only deserved the right
to engage in social and political reforms,
but were necessary to those reform efforts
as their unique roles as women
necessitated their involvement.
To illustrate this point, here is a cartoon
that was published in 1917 by a rather famous pro-suffrage
political cartoon artist by the name of Pock,
and here he has depicting a woman who's dressed
in kind of classic Greek robes
and she's writing on the wall,
changing what it means to be part of the woman's sphere.
At first, it says the woman's sphere is the home,
but that's crossed out and replaced
with Wherever She Makes Good.
And you see on the banner that she's holding,
that includes the home, the law,
industry, the school, the stage, business, and the arts.
In fact, many of the activists during this time period
believed that they could use the separate spheres ideology
to argue that they deserved to have political equality
because they were needed to influence the corrupt nature
of politics, business, and society during this time period.
So, this claim to merit moral superiority became
a core portion of women's rights activism
during the 19th century. (chuckles)
As you might notice, many of these activists first started
in the fight to end slavery.
And then they moved into other issues of moral reform,
including temperance, which is depicted
here in these two images, equal education opportunities,
moral reform movements, including reform of brothels
and other forms of prostitution,
and immigration settlement movements.
They often argued that they were needed
within these particular spheres of influence
because they understood the unique role that these moral,
and immoral acts like drinking alcohol, had on family.
So on the left, we have an image of a series of cartoons.
The series was called The Bottle, it was one of eight,
and in the cartoons, they tell the story
about how a man became drunk consistently
as he would come home from work.
So, rather than bringing his paycheck back home
to his wife and children,
he would spend it all on alcohol.
And in this particular scene
which is the second scene in the series of eight,
it says, in the kind of writing below,
that he discharged from his employment for his drunkenness.
They pawned their clothes to supply the bottle.
Oftentimes, that was kind of the narrative that you heard
when it came to the temperance movement and it was
that alcohol and its consumption destroyed the family,
particularly, destroyed the functioning
of the separate spheres.
Because if men became drunk and spent
all of their money on alcohol,
they could not support and protect their families at home.
So, women argued that they needed to have the right to vote
and they needed to be part of the public sphere,
because they were morally superior to men,
and they could stop things, like alcohol,
from destroying the family.
They used not only that separate spheres ideology
but pretty much anything that they could
to fight for their rights to influence the public sphere
and to make the sale and consumption of alcohol illegal.
On the righthand side, you see an image
of several activists, and a very famous sign
that said, "Lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours."
As I indicated, they would use any tool
at their disposal to try to work towards agitating
towards social change, and this included their roles
as women in relationships.
Notably, this particular image is actually one
that was mocking these Temperance activists.
It's from a still from a film,
and they were basically mocking the role of women in this.
Oftentimes, women who became involved
in the public sphere and were activist
were seen as not being womanly, desirable,
or acceptable during the time period.
You can see in some of the depiction
that they have here, and in more
that I'm going to show you in reaction,
particularly to the fight for suffrage.
In the process of becoming involved
with these moral reform efforts,
many of these activists began to fight
for women's equal rights in particular.
They succeeded in gaining the adoption
of married women's property laws in a number of states,
granting married women's control over their income and property.
In New York, they passed a law in 1860
that would give women joint custody over their children
and the right to sue and be sued,
and in several states, women's rights reformers
secured adoption of permissive divorce laws.
In Connecticut, for example,
they granted divorce for any, "misconduct"
that permanently destroys the happiness of the petitioner
and defeats the purposes of the marriage relationship.
These were new and innovative laws
that had not been in place before
because you could not get legal divorces
prior to this time period.
Thus, by the time of World War I,
women had made great strides for fighting for equal rights.
But they still had not been able to achieve the right to vote.
That particular battle became one
that took nearly a century to win
and much difficulty, including fighting during wars.
So, now we're going to turn a bit to the suffrage movement
and talk about some of the history of this movement
before we get to the particularities of World War I.
Suffrage became part of the national agenda
of women's rights activists
after the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848.
At this convention, women's rights activists,
such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Lucretia Mott, and Frederick Douglass,
came together to vote in a series of resolutions
called the Declaration of Sentiments.
There's a picture of that here on the left-hand side.
The Declaration of Sentiments listed a series
of grievances detailing the unequal state
of women's rights during the time period.
And at the convention, those in attendance were supposed
to vote on a series of resolutions, including suffrage.
Notably, all resolutions passed with ease but suffrage.
Many saw the fight for suffrage to be too radical
and asking for too much in terms of women's rights.
However, abolitionist Frederick Douglass
gave an impassioned speech in support
of suffrage to the attendees.
He said, "Women, like the slave, had the right to liberty.
"Suffrage," he asserted, "is the power to choose rulers,
"and make laws, and the right
"by which all others are secured."
In the end, the resolution was passed
with enough votes to carry it, but just by a bare majority.
Many knew that the fight for suffrage was going
to be a difficult one, and it was fraught.
In fact, the Declaration of Sentiments ends
on quite a note of realism.
They said, "In entering upon the great work before us,
"we anticipate no small amount to misconception,
"misrepresentation, and ridicule.
"But we shall use every instrumentality
"within our power to affect our object.
"We shall employ agents, circulate tracts,
"petition the State and National legislatures,
"and endeavor to list the pulpit
"and the press on our behalf.
"We hope this convention will be followed by a series
"of conventions embracing every part of the country."
And so they did, to the point of engaging in activism
during wartime and challenging many conservations
about what it meant to be a loyal American during wartime.
The suffrage movement had several factions and disagreements
about how to best achieve the right to vote for women.
Some activists believed the focus should be
on broader rights for women
and gaining a Constitutional amendment.
Others thought that fighting state by state
would gain women enough rights that eventually,
there would be a National amendment for suffrage for women.
And those who fought state by state did have great success,
particularly in the west.
Wyoming was the first territory,
followed by several other western territories
to grant women the right to vote.
By the outbreak of World War I in 1917,
women had won the right to vote in eight states,
but no constitutional amendment.
And their work had received considerable backlash
as many believed that suffrage and women's rights
was an affront to women's natural role in the home.
And as we'll see during World War I,
not just their natural role in the home,
but also their role as loyal Americans.
So here's some examples of the backlash to the movement
all around the time of World War I.
On the left-hand side, we have a cartoon
created by Harold Bird in 1912.
It's actually a cartoon that was
targeting suffragettes in London,
but it became a postcard that came over
to the States and was quite popular,
that people kind of passed around
to say that they did not want to have the vote
because it might destroy womanhood.
Similarly on the right-hand side,
many suffragettes were often depicted as being anti-woman,
losing all aspects of their femininity,
possibly even turning into animals
if they had gained the right to vote.
You see these quite detailed depictions
of them in that regard.
Others argued that the right to vote was in fact contrary
to women's minds or their constitutions.
These are from 1906 and 1912, respectively.
On the left-hand side,
you have the Women's Mind Magnified.
And if you can see closely in this--
I'm not sure if the image is good here--
but Women's Mind Magnified includes her love of fashion,
chocolate, babies, dogs, jewelry, and a husband, right?
That's kind of the believe system
about what women really wanted during this time period.
Others argue that women did not have the constitution,
or the kind of mental ability
to be involved in the public sphere or politics.
So on the left-hand side, we have a depiction
of a suffragette in a political hall.
They're all running away
because there is a mouse on the desk,
and, "Even stronger-minded suffragettes
"have their weak moments," was the tagline for that.
Finally, one of the biggest arguments was that
if women did in fact gain the right to vote,
they would destroy the home in the process.
This was a particular argument
that reflected the separate spheres ideology.
This is a cartoon from 1912.
It's from the National League for Opposing Women's Suffrage
which was a house in New York but was a national committee.
And it depicts the woman's home in which a man comes home
and he sees-- you can't see the writing here.
But there's a poster that has, "Votes For Women"
and a note that says, "She's gone out to agitate."
And the children are there, they're in neglect,
there's holes in their socks.
The oil lamp is out, and the house is in disarray.
This was often the argument that suffragettes experienced,
that they, by trying to get the right to vote,
would be abandoning their families
and destroying the home in the process.
So, what actually allowed them to be able
to gain a constitutional amendment for women's suffrage,
one of the core aspects that allowed the change
in this conversation, particularly at the national scale,
was World War I.
So let's turn now to World War I to talk about how
it influenced the suffrage movement
and how it was transformative
to women's rights during the period.
As many of you know, from your conversations
for this talk so far, World War I was transformative
in both American society and in the world.
Beginning in 1914, the war brought unspeakable horrors
from trench warfare and advances in technology.
The United States was slow to enter the war.
President Woodrow Wilson maintained a policy of neutrality
that allowed the US to continue to trade
with both sides of the conflict.
However, as Germany became increasingly aggressive
towards all vessels surrounding the British Isles,
including the sinking of several ships carrying American passengers,
and with the information revealed by the Zimmerman Telegram,
the United States had to reassess
their position of neutrality.
Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany on April 2, 1917
and with the purposes of my conversation with you today,
the particulars of the war are less significant,
or important for us, then the justification of it.
When speaking to Congress on April 2, 1917,
President Woodrow Wilson said,
"The world must be made safe for democracy."
After declaring war, President Wilson needed
all Americans to get behind the effort,
ranging from able-bodied men to enlist,
to all those on the home front buying war bonds
and rationing their food, to women joining the Red Cross,
and other parts of the war effort.
Wilson believed that it was necessary
to mobilize not just the armed forces,
but an entire nation in support of the war.
And thus, he often talked about
how the war was making the world safe for democracy.
This particular statement was one
that many suffragettes seized upon
to try to see what did democracy actually mean,
and who was actually included
in the American democratic public.
At this time period, women were not.
And thus, they utilized that to try to advance their cause.
Here are some examples of some posters
that Wilson and others in the administration released,
trying to get the entire home front
to mobilize in support of the war.
This is one from the US Food Administration
and it says, "Be patriotic.
"Sign your country's pledge to save food."
Many of those believed during this time period
that rationing and buying of war bonds and other things like that
was one of the highest forms of patriotism
and in overt support of the war effort.
They didn't leave out anyone
in this support of the war effort.
Here's something for boys and girls, young children,
asked to "help your Uncle Sam win the war
"by saving your quarters and buying war savings stamps."
In fact, all were called to wake up and support.
Civilization, in particular, was calling,
every man, woman, and child.
And many did in fact answer the call
and answered the call in unique ways.
Women in particular became part of the role
of World War I in ways that were new and ways that were old.
Oftentimes, as I mentioned,
when you're doing women's and gender history,
you tend to see the stories a bit differently
than someone who's doing the history of men.
And that's because oftentimes,
women are not necessarily at the forefront of stories
that are most often told when it comes to American history.
During the war efforts, women have always been there.
They might not have been on the forefront
of the actually war itself,
but they have always been involved in fighting wars.
In fact, in each war in American history,
there's been a consistent band of women
who served the war effort
through non-traditionary military service,
including following around armies,
serving as cooks, nurses, and laundresses.
This was a typical role in the American Revolution
and also in the Civil War.
And during World War I, women took on similar roles
but also new ones, becoming involved in the war effort
through other things like volunteer work.
During World War I, women of all classes mobilized
as volunteers to help Europe put back together
and support the war effort.
This happened across race and class lines,
and this happened both before the US declared war and after.
Thousands of women in the United States formed
and joined new organizations
in which they wanted to bring relief
to war-torn countries in Europe.
After the US joined the allies in 1917,
women continued to support the effort
and dedicated themselves to volunteer organizations,
like the YMCA.
Together, they worked to try to espouse their patriotism
and also support the war in any way
that they were allowed to on the basis
of the gender role during the time period.
The YMCA in particular sent volunteers,
both at home and abroad, and to allied nations,
to help support the men who were serving in the war.
This is a picture of what is called a hut.
These were common for the YMCA, they would build these buildings
that would serve essentially as a place of respite
for those who were serving in the war.
This one was called the Eagle Hut, it was in London.
And many women volunteered to staff these particular huts
to try to support the war effort
and serve the many young men who were fighting.
This is one where they are serving--
That's a soda fountain that they're serving sodas
to the young men there.
And a quote from one of the leaders of the YMCA,
Robert Hewing during this time period,
talking about the efforts of these female volunteers.
He said, "We use the workers everywhere.
"We use them in supervising the dormitories,
"and in supervising the canteen,
"and in service in the canteen.
"We use them in the meetings and the social work,
"we even had a mother's corner.
"And they handle the post-exchange buildings
"and we used them practically everywhere.
"We used them for pretty nearly everything
"you could use the volunteer women for,
"except of course the heavy work
"and other things like building huts."
The efforts of these women were quite extraordinary.
They mobilized themselves both at home and abroad.
They even created their own uniforms
to demonstrate their support of the war effort
and have other people recognize what they were doing
in their roles as volunteers.
Other women also served
through industrial labor during World War I.
Many women took on the industrial workforce,
taking the jobs that many of the able-bodied men had left.
Notably, this move into the workforce was not as extreme
as we saw during World War II.
You might be more familiar with the World War II move
into the industrial workforce
with the narrative of Rosie the Riveter.
In World War I, it wasn't quite the same number
as you saw in World War II,
but women worked in ammunitions factories,
other parts of the war industries,
and they helped America fight the war
by giving them the goods to do so.
They also utilized their role
as the ones in control of the home.
They were involved in things like rationing and war bonds.
This is a poster from the US Food Administration
and it says, "She is doing her part to help win the war,"
and can kind of see what she's doing when it comes to cooking.
Women used their role as household managers
to try to help win the war effort.
President Wilson and the US Food Administration
led campaigns to encourage rationing on the home front,
connecting rationing and other activities,
like buying war bonds, to the highest form of patriotism.
American women responded by consistently
rationing their foods and promoting activities,
like Meatless Tuesdays, or Wheatless Wednesdays.
Importantly, these types of campaigns demonstrated
different reaction to wartime efforts that we have today.
During World War I, everyone was highly aware we were at war
and engaged in the war effort in small or large ways.
Today, wars are going on,
but the American public does not engage
in the war efforts in the same way
that they did during World War I.
And women were essential to bringing the war effort
to the home and conscripting all of America to fight,
even if not on the front lines.
Still, some women did make it near the front lines
through their work with The Red Cross and the Armed Forces.
Women served The Red Cross in multiple fashions,
both at home and abroad.
Typically, American women served
as nurses with The Red Cross and they worked
alongside the Army Nurse Corps members doing the same work.
They also served in the Armed Forces
for some of the first times in American history.
During the Great War, 21,498 US Army nurses
and 1,476 US Navy nurses served in military hospitals
in The United States and overseas.
It was the first time that Army and Navy military nurses
performed active-duty abroad.
Moreover, women enlisted in The Armed Forces,
serving largely at home
so that male soldiers could serve overseas.
For example, the Navy and the Marines accepted 13,000 women
into active duty, and there was a much smaller number
that was admitted into the Coast Guard.
Typically, these women served in clerical positions,
but they had ranks, benefits, and responsibilities
like their male counterparts,
even being eligible for veterans' benefits at war's end.
On the left-hand side, we have the image of Loretta Walsh
who was enlisted in The United States Naval Reserve
in March of 1917.
She was the first active-duty woman
in the Navy who was not a nurse.
The US Army did not allow women
to serve like men in their ranks.
They did create the Army Nurse Corps,
which enlisted women but these workers were paid unequally
and often did not receive military rank.
Still, many civilian women in the army would work
through different contracts.
They worked as telephone operators,
and here, they're nicknamed the Hello Girls.
This is an image on the right-hand side there.
They were clerks, typists, stenographers,
translators, and canteen hostesses.
However, within this full support,
our call for the support of the war,
not all women necessarily received
as much influence as they should have.
We have on the left-hand side, an image of the Navy, who did recruit women,
tried to recruit women into the war.
On the right-hand side, a picture of American nurses
nursing a young man back to health in France in 1915.
Still, there was a lot of backlash
in the call for the full support of the war.
Particularly, anybody who was involved in activism
that distracted from the war effort
was seen as being unpatriotic and un-American.
For suffragettes, this became a huge source of tension.
So, even though women were fighting
in part of the war effort in many ways,
as you can see from what I just showed you,
they also did not have equal rights in the United States.
That tension was something that suffragettes wanted
to exploit to try to advance women's rights,
and particularly the right to vote.
In previous wars, including the Civil War,
it was considered necessary to set aside all forms
of activism that might distract from the war effort.
Many argued that when fighting a war,
all Americans needed to behind the effort
in whatever means possible,
and never ever criticize a wartime president.
However, for suffragette activists,
the momentum of gaining a national amendment
could not be stopped.
And many of these activists believed
that it was absolutely necessary
to fight for women's suffrage during the war period
because of the justification of the war.
As the image on the right indicates,
the active argument was that women
were not receiving the same rights and liberty
that Wilson was alleging he fought for abroad,
even though they were being asked
to sacrifice in great numbers for the war effort.
Now I'll read you the copy.
This is from the Pennsylvania Women's Suffrage Association,
and they ask, "Who shares the cost of war?
"Who faced death in order to give life to men?
"Women.
"Who love and work to rear the sons
"who then are killed in battle?
"Women.
"Who plant fields and harvest crops
"when all the able-bodied men are called to war?
"Women.
"Who keeps shops and schools and work in factories
"while men are in the trenches?
"Women.
"Who nurse the wounded, feed the sick,
"support the helpless, brave all danger?
"Women.
"Who see their homes destroyed by shell and fire,
"their little ones made destitute, daughters outraged?
"Women.
"Who are sent adrift alone, no food, no hope,
"no shelter for the unborn child?
"Women.
"Who must suffer agony for every soldier killed?
"Women.
"Who are called upon to make sacrifices
"to pay the terrible tax of war?
"Women.
"Who dare say that war is not their business?
"In the name of justice and civilization,
"give women a voice in government
"and the councils that make or prevent war."
This was often the argument of suffragettes
during this time period,
that if President Wilson wanted to make sure
that the world was safe for democracy,
he needed to ensure that the democracy of America included,
not some, but all those who lived there.
President Wilson had begun to show some support
for women's suffrage prior to the declaration of war,
but he largely supported the state-by-state efforts
and saw the constitutional amendment,
at least initially, to be too radical.
To force greater pressure on him,
and to fight for women's right to vote on a national level,
the suffragettes of the period took a new tactic
led by the spunky and revolutionary Alice Paul.
Alice Paul was an American suffragist,
feminist, and activist.
She was raised a Quaker, and by her parents,
instilled with the ideals of a quality for all.
She graduated from Swarthmore College,
and went to England to study social work.
While in England, Paul was exposed
to a new kind of suffragette activism
run by the Pankhurst women.
Their motto was, "Deeds, not words."
And rather than argue for suffrage
because with women's moral superiority,
and leaning into the construction
of women as being moral, pious, and peaceful,
Pankhurst women believed in the need
for visible and direct action.
They often organized their activist to heckle,
smash windows, throw rocks, and even set up non-lethal bombs
to raise awareness about suffrage.
Paul learned much from the Pankhurst women.
She was a non-violent activist,
she did not believe in using violence.
But she understood that the Pankhurst women made suffrage
a very visible movement in England,
and she wanted to take some of those tools.
Particularly, she refused to behave
like a respectable woman to gain the right to vote.
Instead, Paul wanted the fight for suffrage
to include more visible and direct action tools
for the American suffrage movement.
She did not want to compromise or comport herself like a lady,
but instead, talented a no-compromise form of activism.
And early on in her role in the American suffrage movement,
she clashed with President Woodrow Wilson.
When Paul returned to The United States in 1912,
she became involved with the National American Women's Suffrage Association.
She quickly rose to leadership
as the head of the congressional committee
in charge of working for a Federal amendment
to achieve the suffrage amendment.
In 1912, she moved to DC with two of her friends,
Lucy Burns and Crystal Eastman,
and to fight for federal suffrage.
Quickly and with little support,
they decided to organize a highly visible women's march
that intentionally clashed with the inauguration
of President Woodrow Wilson on March 3, 1913.
They lead the parade with Inez Milholland,
which is a picture of her right here.
She was a lawyer, an activist, and socialite
who was dressed like a Greek goddess in robes
and riding a white horse down the main street.
The parade drew large crowds,
greatly distracting from Wilson's inauguration,
and it began to grow ugly.
Many of the male onlookers began attacking the suffragettes
physically and verbally.
The police did not intervene.
As a result, the parade made national headlines,
far more headlines than President Wilson's
inauguration had made.
This made suffrage part of the national conversation,
which was Paul's intention.
She did not want to see the violence happening,
but she did want people to have suffrage
on their minds at all times, even during the war effort.
She continued her direct action approach,
not backing down from Wilson or anyone else,
even when America declared war, on 1917.
Notably, Paul was well known for not liking President Wilson.
Unlike some of her compatriots in the suffrage movement,
like Carrie Chapman Catt, Paul believed
that suffragettes should not support a president
that did not publicly declare for women's suffrage.
Catt conversely, like many of those
in the suffrage movement, was satisfied
with Wilson's support for a state-by-state approach
and thought it was necessary to stay on Wilson's good side.
The feud resulted in Paul leaving
the National American Women's Suffrage Association
and forming a new party, called the National Women's Party.
And it is with this party that Paul brought the issue
of suffrage to the forefront of national conversation
during World War I.
Particularly, she did this through the campaigning
of the Silent Sentinels.
In 1917, the National Women's Party formed
what was known as the Silent Sentinels
who stood outside of the White House holding banners
inscribed with incendiary phrases
directed towards President Wilson.
Here are some of those banners.
On the left-hand side, it says, "Mr. President,
"how long must women wait for liberty?"
Pulling directly from one of his quotes
in support of World War I.
On the right-hand side, "Mr. President,
"what will you do for women's suffrage?"
Oftentimes, Wilson would be coming
in and out of the White House, passing these suffragettes.
They would never heckle him, or say anything to him,
but make him see their banners.
This was Paul's approach to try to make President Wilson
aware of the need to make democracy true
for all Americans, not just some.
Initially, Wilson seemed to treat
these suffragette activists with benign amusement,
he would often tip his hat.
But as some of the phrases became a bit more incendiary,
and he declared war in 1917, his attitude began to change.
Here's another one of the signs.
It says, "We protest against the 34 willful senators
"who've delayed the political freedom of American women.
"They've obstructed the war program of the president,
"they have lined up the Senate with Prussia
"by their denial of self-government to the people."
And the most incendiary, calling President Wilson,
Kaiser Wilson.
This is where Wilson started to get angry
in response to the picketing of the White House
and others also saw their activities
of picketing at the White House as being inappropriate.
Here, they say "Kaiser Wilson,
"have you forgotten your sympathy with the poor Germans
"because they were not self-governed?
"20 million American women are not self-governed.
"Take the beam out of your own eye."
Essentially, Paul and her Silent Sentinels
were calling Wilson and his administration, and their fight
for democracy on the international level, a farce.
They argued that if he was truly going to fight
for democracy, he would fight for it at home as well.
The public seemed quite angry by these wartime protests,
claiming that the suffragettes were unpatriotic,
for distracting from the war,
and the need for all those to support it.
In fact, a key argument from most of the public responses
was that these women were not only unpatriotic,
but the worst example of what a woman in the public eye was.
Someone who had lost, not only her womanhood,
but her allegiance to the United States.
As a result, these Silent Sentinels started
to be attacked by angry mobs,
and the DC police did nothing
to stop the violent attacks from these mobs.
Rather, they started to arrest the suffragettes
on charges of "obstructing traffic."
Paul and her compatriots were asked
to pay imposed fines and they refused.
So, they sent them to a workhouse, a Virginian prison.
After her arrest, Paul and her fellow suffragettes decided
to once again follow the British model
and demanded to be treated like political prisoners.
They staged hunger strikes,
and many of those on the outside wanted to bring visibility
to the treatment of the women within the prison.
This is one of the signs that they used again
outside the White House that says, "We demand that the American Government
"give Alice Paul, a political offender,
"the privileges that Russia gave Miyukoff."
And that is referencing a political prisoner
from the early 1900s by the name
of Paul Miyukoff in Russia
who had been imprisoned for six months
for giving a political speech.
There, they are not only calling out President Wilson
for his poor treatment of the suffragettes,
but essentially claiming that
at least Russia recognized political prisoners
when The United States would not.
In response, the guards became increasingly hostile
to those in prison within these workhouses.
They were treated horribly, often beaten,
force-fed if they went on hunger strikes, through the nose,
and thrown into solitary confinement
in rat-invested, cold cells.
The force-feeding was particularly difficult
for the women during this time period
as it was both physically traumatic
and psychologically torturous.
But they never caved.
Paul was even sent to a sanitarium
where they tried to declare her insane.
But Paul and her compatriots
snuck out their conditions to the press.
According to legend,
Paul and others wrote their stories
on scraps of toilet paper and other paper they could find,
passing them to sympathetic female guards.
These stories were then published in the press,
and once published, the public changed their tune.
They were no longer concerned about issues
of wartime activism and disloyalty.
Rather, they were focused
on the ill treatment of these women.
And the public began campaigning for their release,
drumming up sympathy, not only for the prisoners,
but also for the cause for women's suffrage.
Specifically, many began to ask,
if America fought for democracy abroad,
what did America's democracy at home actually look like?
And how long must women wait for liberty?
In 1917, Wilson publicly declared his support
for women's suffrage amendment, calling it a wartime measure.
He was particularly moved by his daughter
who was a leading suffragette,
who had personally informed him of the ill treatment of Paul
and of other suffragettes in prison.
During wartime, he began to publicly campaign
for women's suffrage, lobbying Congress.
In 1918, he gave a speech before Congress stating,
"We have made partners of the women in this war.
"Shall we admit them only to a partnership
"of suffering, and sacrifice, and toil,
"and not to a partnership of privilege and right?"
Although his impassioned speech did not gain enough votes initially,
on June 4, 1919, the suffragette amendment
gained enough votes in the House to be sent to the states for ratification.
Per constitutional law,
once Congress ratified the amendment,
it would be sent to the states for a vote, and to become an amendment,
3/4 of the states needed to ratify it.
Little civics lesson there.
The battle came down to Tennessee.
In the summer of 1920, the youngest member
of the Tennessee Assembly, Harry Burn,
cast the deciding vote.
Again, according to legend,
we don't have a whole lot of sources on this,
Burn was supposed to say no.
He had been convinced by the elders in the assembly
that it was not the right thing to do.
But he received a telegram from his mother,
and the telegram told him that he needed
to support women's right to vote,
and he changed his vote to yes.
Six days later, on August 26, 1920,
Secretary of State certified the ratification,
making it official that women had the right
to vote across The United States.
On that day, Paul and her fellow activists toasted
with grape juice because they could not toast
with any form of alcohol, as you might know,
because it had been rendered illegal
thanks to the temperance movement at the time period,
before the National Women's Party banner
as this image shows.
Ultimately, during World War I,
an unattended by key legacy of the war is women's suffrage.
Wilson became known as a women's rights man
and his legacy includes support for women's rights.
The activism of the suffragettes brings several key questions
for historian and Americans today,
including who is best served by American democracy?
Is wartime activism inappropriate and unpatriotic?
What is the best method for affecting change
and trying to make American rights more open to all?
For Paul and her compatriots,
wartime activism was the catalyst needed
to make women's suffrage a national conversation,
and ultimately, to force an American president
to support their cause after nearly a century of trying.
So today, I will close with her words,
"I never doubted that equal rights were the right direction.
"Most reforms, most problems are complicated.
"But to me, there is nothing complicated
"about ordinary equality."
Thank you.
(applause)