Is a Sad History Repeating Itself?
The recent behavior of the Clinton campaign and its allies has disturbing parallels in the earliest days of the woman suffrage movement. Then, in the face of a short-term set-back, the most prominent woman suffrage campaigners broke with the abolitionist movement and espoused explicitly racist politics. The result was a debilitating split in the movement for woman suffrage, and a half century of defeat.
The women in question are Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Like other early women's rights advocates, Stanton and Anthony initially became politically active in the abolitionist movement, and through this activism began formulating an increasingly articulate feminist agenda (though the word "feminism" was not available to them at the time).
The civil war put women's rights on hold, as abolitionist women threw their energies into the union war effort. After the war, the question of voting rights for freed slaves moved to the top of the national agenda. Slavery was ended, but whether the freed slaves would be granted the full rights of citizens, and most particularly the right to vote, was anything but certain. To Stanton and Anthony, the debate on voting rights was an open door for a push to extend the vote to all adult citizens regardless of race or gender. They took it as given that the political coalition which had achieved abolition and was now poised to campaign for the Fourteenth Amendment would see things the same way. It was inconceivable to them that the nation might grant the vote to black men yet leave black women -- and white women -- disenfranchised.
Most abolitionist leaders, including prominent white women such as Lucy Stone, took an opposite tack, arguing that it was the "Negro's hour" and women would have to wait. In their view, while black suffrage and woman suffrage might be linked logically, the political reality was that the fight for black male suffrage would be a difficult one, and complicating the matter by raising woman suffrage would put the fruits of the tremendous sacrifices of the civil war in jeopardy. Victory for black suffrage, they argued, would open the door for women, whereas a defeat for black suffrage would close all possibility of enlarging the franchised population for years to come. Those advocating this course included movement superstars William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, both of whom had consistently been far ahead of the pack in their support of female abolitionists formulating a program for women's rights.
The issue came to a head in 1867 in Kansas, where citizens were asked to vote simultaneously on two separate constitutional amendments, one enfranchising black men, the other women. The outcome would finally decide the debate over whether the political rights of slaves would be defined as the "[male] Negro's hour" or a "more complete democracy." With so much on the line, the split between those campaigning for just one or both amendments became predictably bitter. On election day black suffrage won, while woman suffrage lost overwhelmingly.
The real political catastrophe, however, was not this set-back but the ugly politics that ensued. What had begun as a principled disagreement with reasoned arguments on both sides degenerated into a political debacle as one side in the debate refused to accept that its position would lose. Stanton and Anthony had been the most prominent woman suffrage campaigners in the Kansas election, and as they sensed victory slipping beyond their reach they tried to shore up their prospects by reaching out to racists. They developed a close relationship with a flamboyant racist named George Francis Train, who stumped for them around the state. Attacks on the intelligence of blacks were fundamental to Train's standard appeal, and he employed them as an argument for voting rights for women. The collaboration between two top woman suffragists and such a blatant racist horrified many other suffragists. Stanton and Anthony shocked their friends by refusing to budge in the face of withering criticism. "So long as opposition to slavery is the only test for your platform," Stanton angrily wrote to the abolitionists, "why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association, even though they be rabid pro-slavery?"
The following year, Stanton, Anthony and Train launched the Revolution, a newspaper which broke much new ground for women's rights in America, discussing prostitution, infanticide, sex education, cooperative housekeeping. But the paper also carried on with explicitly racist appeals to white women. "American women of wealth, education, virtue, and refinement," Stanton warned, "If you do not wish the lower orders of Chinese, Africans, Germans and Irish, with the low ideas of womanhood to make laws for you and your daughters, ... to dictate not only the civil, but moral codes by which you shall be governed, awake to the danger of your present position."
Thus began a split in the movement for woman suffrage that would hobble the movement for 50 long years until American women finally won the right to vote in 1920. The whole sordid history is a painful chapter that causes American feminists discomfort even today. Some feminists have promoted Anthony and Stanton as historical heroines and role models, and in the 1970s Anthony became the first woman to appear on American money when the Susan B. Anthony dollar was minted. Other feminists have strongly objected, arguing that ignoring the racist legacy of these women only exacerbates the racial divisions that have plagued feminism in America.
The parallels with today are obvious. As the Clinton campaign began to feel the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming the first female president slip away, the campaign has resorted to increasingly racist appeals. One wonders if, decades from now, Hillary Clinton will be a hero in the feminist pantheon or, like Stanton and Anthony, a reminder of a painful episode that future feminists will prefer to forget.
For a more detailed history of these events, see my recent book, People's Movements, People's Press: The Journalism of Social Justice Movements (Beacon Press, 2006)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So Clinton broke the story about Obama and his church?
Race wasn’t an issue in the campaign until then, so the whole premise of this article exists only to pass blame to Clinton.
Further, I would point out that the right wing is going to use the socialist leanings of the church a lot more than race to smear Obama. And as I’ve said before, the fact that the media is not touching this now only guarantees that it will be a much bigger issue later.
What happens if in the fall if the media stalk Obama and wait for every bad moment and slip of the tongue, and these become the majority of the clips they run? We need unity now, not division. Stop creating false hatred where none exists.
Bob
Hillary may be remembered a lot of ways, but "feminist" is not one of them. The motivation for being a feminist is to work on making the world a safe secure place for others by uprooting patriarchal values, like discrimination against others and warmongering.
She'll be remembered as the wife of Bill Clinton who ran for president of the US.
I agree.
I think we have to demand better from our politicians.
I mean, this is our country's highest office - the presidency - and as an electorate we should know every detail of every policy our candidates have supported and every position they have ever taken on key issues.
character and integrity should be another of our highest qualifying priorities. the way a candidate runs his/her campaign really says so much about who he/she will be in office. the person who leads us and represents us to the world should be cut from the finest cloth.
This post by Mr. Ostertag is very informative. I had no clue that Anthony had aligned with racists in order to help keep her progressive cause alive.
I'd only like to point out that many human beings operate on the same level: "conditioned" self-interest. Sometimes, it seems, that self-interest is so strong that it leads people to ally with enemies of the collective interest, in order to achieve success for their own self-interests. But when collective interests are sacrificed (in this case, racial harmony), self-interests also eventually suffer in the long run. (Global warming, for another example).
The greater collective good does exist - there are some things that do benefit us all in the long-term. Equality between men & women, racial harmony are just two. A cleaner environment, sustainable economies, and peace between nations are others. It's also quite interesting to note that most of these genuinely collective goods are intertwined. It's unlikely we'll resolve issues of global warming while we're bombing the Middle East, or that we'll develop energy independence by exploiting the environment and invading oil-rich countries like Iraq & Iran.
Unfortunately, what many "Clinton feminists" do is place their own collective good (equality between men & women) above all others. In the process, they mutate what was once a collective good, into a debased self-interest. In prioritizing their own self-interests, they blind themselves to the collective good, eventually alienating themselves from other potential allies, and paradoxically, postponing the fulfillment of their own goals. This is why Taylor Marsh, the epitome of a "Clinton feminist", can hear Obama's speech on race, but only take away from it a comment about Obama's white grandmother (a person with which Marsh can more easily identify with, as opposed to blacks). What Marsh doesn't realize, is that she is "the angry white woman who complains everything is about sexism" version of "the angry black man who complains everything is about racism". Neither of these will get very far in advancing their cause, because they will have few allies outside those of their own group.
I can only tell you from my own personal experience, as a person of color who will unlikely see a person of their own race (Asian-American) running for President in my lifetime, it doesn't bother me that Asian-Americans are "marginalized". And even if it DID bother me, what would be the point of my getting upset about it? Nothing would change. I would think I was wasting my life if I were to devote myself to "Asian-American causes", because frankly, the state of the world is deterioriating at such a rapid rate precisely because most people are fighting for their own self-interests, and not for any collective good. As long as we're stuck in our own causes that are directly related to our own short-term self-interests, we're not going to achieve any significant progress collectively on any front. In fact, if we only fight for ourselves, and don't start learning how to fight for each other and work together collectively, we may not even survive on this planet.
Clinton is a perfect example of the self-interested individual fighting only for causes that are directly related to herself. She is losing on all measurable criteria, yet she is continuing this campaign for her own personal good, even though the greater good of the Democratic Party is suffering from the protracted conflict & infighting. Only McCain benefits. Two Democrats fighting each other, is not exactly the best impression the Dems want to give to crucial swing states & Independents. If she fights to the end until August, McCain will be rested and solidified, while Obama will most likely be fatigued, and will only have 2-3 months to campaign across the entire USA. Every day that Clinton battles Obama, increases the chances that more disaffected Clinton voters will not rally around the nominee, and is one less day for the Dems to regroup and battle McCain collectively. Obama may lose, McCain may win, and the Supreme Court may go right, overturning Roe-Wade, setting back the feminist cause by however many years. A perfect example of self-interested "progressives" hurting their own cause due to lack of vision and willingness to support the causes of others and the collective good.
Sen. Clinton does not have the low approval ratings for naught. Sen. clinton could have helped to keep this campaign on the issues but her strategy was one of arrogance "the inevitable canidate," and entitlement when that failed Sen. clinton decided to utilize her kitchen sink strategy. What a lovely woman?
This is the article I should have written. Thank you for doing it for me.
I'm not sure who the 'feminists' are that you think disown historic figures like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony...
Historic and infamous are not the same thing.
Your post indicates that you don't know the historical details of the feminist movement that you seem to support so fervently.
Yes Hillary has displayed historic arrogance.
Are you denying that Anthony and Stanton's racist past or the notion that there are feminist today who, in recognizing their racist past, are uncomfortable with their legacy?
Please stop insulting our intelligence, and your own. The relationship between Stanton, Anthony, and racism is only a secret to those who only know the "made for TV" version of the history. You read, you do a little research,.
Frankly, although I'm not a fan of Senator Clinton, and feel her campaign is dumb, divisive, and has flirted with wink/nod prejudice, and code-speak, I don't think that comparing Senator Clinton to either Anthony or Stanton is quite fair,...ev
Hillary has proven herself to be the worst kind of opportunist. I marvel daily at Barrack's restraint and composure. Feminism -- okey dokey. How about some humanism, make it secular, to go with that? She's disgraced herself in these past several weeks. Utterly unfit to be President of the United States. The sooner she gets off the stage and allows the nominee to do what must be done, the better.
I guess I am supposed to be Clinton's constituency but I am absolutely not. I find everything about the Clinton campaign and Senator HIllary Clinton herself to be a combination of poor management, ineffectiveness, desperation, divisiveness and embarassment. I truly believe her campaign gives us a window into what her administration would be and woe unto the country should she be elected.
There are a lot of us out here--people that lived through the civil-rights sixties--who would be more than happy to vote for any American--
I have long been considered a feminist. Possibly because I am a woman and an academic. However I do not agree with second wave feminists who see Senator Clinton as a feminist ... having female genitalia does not a feminist make. Second wave feminists are concerned with static location identity politics which do not account for other issues including race, social class, ethnicity, sexuality ,historicity, region, religion etc ...
Hillary Clinton is not a feminist ... her stances do not seek transformation rather they seek the status quo ... someday there will be a female candidate that I can support but she is not that person ... her voting record is abysmal. Her claim to fame? Being married to a president whose hype exceeds his accomplishments ...
No, no., no I would rather take to the streets than support her as my candidate
Well said. I so agree. I am a woman who is Hillary's age. I do not, however, share her values.
Bob, your premise is that feminists are emotionally invested in Hillary Clinton's success. Many, perhaps most, don't. To begin, Hillary took the un-feminist course of marrying well and depending on her husband's superior skills to propel her political career. Second, her political positions are not defined by feminism; in fact, they have virtually nothing to do with women --- and of course, for the most part, they shouldn't. Sure, plenty of women support Clinton because they identify with her. But that's just crude identity politics. It has nothing to do with feminism.
Married WELL? In what parallel universe is moving to Arkansas and marrying a (broke) wannabe politician a sure step up in the world?
In our very own universe, calluna. When Hillary married him, Bill was not only a Rhodes scholar and Yale Law School grad, but was extraordinarily well connected from his work on Capitol Hill and in Arkansas politics. He made no secret of his plan to run for governor, and no one who knew him doubted his talent. Hillary wavered before moving to Arkansas, but it was the price she paid for this advantageous alliance. You should read some biographies of the Clintons. I'm sure you'd enjoy them.
calluna,
Please, he was Yale educated and a Rhodes Scholar. He had potential, and like, entering the senate in 2001, to run for president in 2008, she married him because of his potential, not what he literally had at the time. She was scheming even back then.
It seems to me like there's an easy solution to see if this really is all just about electing a woman to hold such a high office: Obama selects a woman as his VP. Just to be absolutely sure it's not just about Hillary, he needs to find someone slightly more progressive than HRC. If the throngs of supposed pseudofeminists who have been apparently misled by the elect-Hill
I'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek here, though. I recognize there are many people out there who just happen to be women but support Hillary because they've decided she's the best for the job. It's an entirely valid informed choice, and no less valid than the informed choice of Obama's supporters - who I've noticed really hate being called a cult (or similar epithets), probably mainly for the reason that it's a total untruth that not only harms Obama, but HRC, her supporters, and the whole political system, every time it's raised as a "reason" not to root for him.
To be fair, I am biased. I disagree that HRC represents the best choice, as I don't believe the safe Center-Right established "experienced" candidate is necessarily best for a country that needs to distance itself from the politics of the last few years -- as much as possible. But I do respect that most western democratic politicical systems tend to favour the safest Centrist course, so in that sense people are just following tradition in an honest way when they jump on that particular bandwagon.
No Impeach Bush and Cheney and then we have our woman President (for a while) in Pelosi.
Thank you for the article. You've put your finger on exactly what hte problem has been with Hillary's campaign, and the shame of feminists who've badly damaged the movement by throwing their lot in with Hillary no matter how ugly her actions have been (especially ignoring her maltreatment of women, in her quest for power). I can't, in good conscience, call myself a feminist, given the current state of the movement.
You can 't call yourself a feminist given the current state of the movement?
We may disagree on the exact definition of feminist but if you belive women and men should have the same rights and responsibilies, then you are probably a feminist. Go ahead, call yourself a feminist and most people will take you on good faith that you are one. As for the 'movement', well, there is no 'movement but there are an array of feminist organizations - you have the right to agree or disagree with any or all of them or any issue or all issues. Their positions on issues has nothing to do with how you perceive yourself.
She voted and supported THE INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ!!! That decision alone disqualifies her to hold public office in my view. Are you going to let the surgeon that cut off the wrong arm have another chance? Her priorities are not mine. They are not progressive. They are conservative. IOW, corporate.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
