Well, good evening. Welcome to the william g. Mcgowan theater at the National Archives. Im debra wall. Deputy archivist of the United States and im pleased you could join us for tonights program, whether youre here in the theater or joining us through facebook, youtube, or cspan. Tonights discussion of womens suffragists and the men who supported them, the suffragents is part of the series events related to our current exhibit, rightfully hers, american women and the vote. Our partners are the 2020 womens Vote Centennial Initiative, and the one woman one vote 2020 festival, and we thank them for their support. Our special exhibit, rightfully hers, tells the story of womens struggle for Voting Rights, to secure these rights women activists had to win allies among men and influential positions. It was men who sat in the state legislatures that would ratify or reject the 19th amendment. Whose centennial we now celebrate. When rightfully hers opened in our Lawrence Obrien gallery last may, guests at the opening reception were offered a yellow rose pin as they entered the museum. That evoked the badges worn by the mens league of womens surerage. This nod to the role men played came as a surprise, so tonight, were going to take look at those suffragents 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 suffragist memorial. From 2000 to 2015, she served as the executive director of the league of women voters. Previously, she served as the chief operating officer of the academy of Public Administration and in the department of energy, the 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. And as she said, its called rightfully hers, american women and the vote. I myself have toured the exhibit twice. Its great. And i encourage everybody else to come and see it too. So as she mentioned, im the cochair of the women Vote Centennial Initiative and the former executive director of the league of women voters of the United States. The league is one of the cofounders of the womens Vote Centennial Initiative. And that group, which in short hand is wvci was formed an an information sharing collaborative of the scholars working in this area. We want to celebrate the anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment, which will be of course officially next year, 2020, and in doing that, we 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 Carrie Chapman kat, who was the head of the largest suffragist organization, the National Womens suffrage organization, and the league under her guidance was formed six months before the amendment would pass. The league, so tlefherefore, th league is also having its own 100th anniversary next year. There is a league in every state and approximately 700 cities and counties around the country, and 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. But let nee just say a few more words about the 2020 womens Vote Centennial Initiative. We work to establish and connect people, networks all around the country, girl scout troops, universities, any kind of organization who is interested in learning about our suffrage history and how they can be part of these 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 of wvcis women and the vote symposium series. This is 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 little told 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 wvci by visiting our website, facebook, instagram, and twitter. Using the hashtag at2020cent n hashtag at2020centennial. Im pleased to introduce tonights panel. You have their full biographies in your program so im going to call them up by name. Come on up, ladies. We have our moderator, Betsy Fischer martin, who is the executive director of women in Politics Institute at american university. Brooke kroeger, the author of the suffragents, how women used men to get the vote. Johanna neuman, who is the author of gilded suffragists. And susan ware, who is the author of why they marched. So betsy, i turn it over to you. Thank you very much, nancy. Welcome, everyone. Really nice to be here with you today. So we have a special treat. Three terrific experts, and i well tell you just personally, i had a wonderful time reading and learning so much about this issue in preparation for tonight, so im excited for you all to hear it as well. So brooke, let me start with you. Your book tells a 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 on a lecture tour. Because she had been in jail, she could not come through a normal port, so she snuck in through canada, causing quite a big stir. She lectured around the country. 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 how nothing of this nature was going on here. So 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 and publisher of both the nation magazine and the new york evening post. Thats a nice combination. I was going to say, a heck of a combination right now, but it was at the time. He was also the son of fanny garrison ballard, who was an important suffragist and the grandson of an abolitionist and suffragist. She wrote to him remembering when he was at harvard in 1904, he had made a wonderful speech at the massachusetts suffrage organization, and wanted him to speak at a convention. So he wrote back saying he was taxed to the limit of his strength. Didnt think he could commit to anything of that nature, but he was thinking it would be a very good idea, and i think this was in the zeitgeist, that a group of men of prominence would come together, not to do much more than lend their names and trot up to albany or to washington to speak to legislatures and politicians if the need arose. She wrote back and said that this was not a new idea, that the suffrage organization which at this point was very much in the doldrums, had had the idea before and in fact there actually was a mens Suffrage League that started in 18741875 in the east village in new york, met about 80 times, and then fell out of existence and memory, and i think this must have been what she was referring to because she said the men who have been willing to engage are so full of isms, and we have so many women full of isms. Its about the last thing we need. The men who we really need, you, oswald, you know, basically what she was suggesting, never seem to have the time for our cause. So he wrote back, and he said, you know, of course, im paraphrasing. He said i think i could find a group of he didnt say i can find. 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 rabbi steven weisz and john dewy, the philosopher and columbia professor as his triumvirate, and they, dewys student at columbia was max eastman, a philosophy student starting to have a writing career, obviously 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 anise ford eastman, who is from upstate elmira. She comes down. Theyre writing letters, the letters are going everywhere, so its unimaginable with what, 10, 15 newspapers in new york at the time, that someone would not get wind of this. And of course, the niemsz dthe times did and runs a chiding front page article with a headline that was something like, you know, mens voices to join the soprano chorus for womens votes. And then it names all these people whose names they had gotten wind of. Of course, there were only 25 at that point. One the director of Bellevue Hospital resigned. He was so embarrassed. But most were okay. Eastman was mortified, and he but he had recruited George Foster peabody, who became the financial mainstay of the league, and he said dont worry about it. By the time were really ready to announce, everyone will have forgotten this and all will be well. 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 ethyl snowden, the wife of the british mp. This was very elite in its construction in the beginning. Later, they invited men of all sorts because it was understood what you needed was men who voted. This was really the point. And having this kind of male support was key. And then that leads us, and im sure someone else can tell the story of the parade, but they march as a group of 89 men in top hats and bowlers in the Second Annual new york suffrage parade in may of 1911 where theyre pilloried and mocked and every sort of insult is hurled. And they embrace this. It galvanizes them. From then, 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. Well, i did want to pick up on brookes point. Yeah. So there were 89 men in the 1911 parade. One year later, in 1912, there were 1,000 men. So thats how much the movement grew in a very short period. A year later, there were 35 states and numbering in the tens of thousands. One of the men who marched, and i was just looking for this quote, was rabbi weisz. Rabbi weisz was a major progressive. He often lectured in the city on progressive causes, those isms that you spoke of that was just a time of great ferment. There was 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 weisz 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 brooke suggested. Those guys were rolling their eyes. On the street, they were hurling insults. 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 explanations that greeted us were, whos taking care of the baby . Oh, flossy, dear, arent they cute . Look at the molly coddles. Another male suffragist, also another suffrage husband, as they were called, was george middleton. He recalled hecklers crying, take that handkerchief out of your cuff. Oh, you gay deceiver. 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 the 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 states on referenda or as members of legislative committees or lawmakers in congress. There was this great fear that politics would harden women and emasculate 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 is probably 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 for women to have the vote. After the civil war, when Elizabeth Cady stanton and susan b. Anthony split the woman, the Womens Movement apart by vowing that they will not support the 15th amendment, which removes 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 cross purposes. But one black man named robert pervis stood up for Elizabeth Cady stanton and susan b. Anthony in this rather unexpected decision to fight the 15th amendment. And pervis said, if my 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. I think whats distinct in this particular era is that they organized. Absolutely. And you know, celebrity endorsers, there have also been, back to thomas payne, theres always been those, but 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 they talk about it also, the only thing he mentioned. No one ever mentioned the league by name. Only james lees laid laws obituary mentions it because his wife probably wrote it and she was such a great suffragist. They never talked about it again. I wondered why. Like, was it chivalrous to not ever take credit . Were they just, you know, 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 die, you know, six decades later, its it wasnt an important aspect of who they were . Only laid laws and eastmans make any mention of it. Its kind of fascinating. George creole, as soon as he becomes head of the committee on public information, hes not talking about it at all. Because wilson, of course, wasnt supportive. So its interesting. Susan, i want to get back to sort of the home life, if you will, and you know, 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, 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 can 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 to support suffrage, it can effect all kinds of other things in her life. It can affect her family of orig origin, who shes partnered with, her colleagues. It can affect where she lives, where she travels, it can affect where she dresses. Its really a big commitment, and one of the places where you see it really hitting home, literally, is in suffrage marriages. You write in your book, why they marched about a married couple, ray and Gertrude Foster brown. Tell us about them. Well, 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 b