, after the lunar module finding out that we had 45 hours with the power and united from home, he said something like i don't think we are going to make it the way we are right now and i said i want to agree with you. what we are doing now is going to hack it. >> learn more about the germanic mission this sunday at 1 p.m. eastern here on american history tv monday night on the communicators, american economic liberties project sarah miller on big tet -- big tech companies as monopolies and the impact of corporate concentration. >> now there are some extravagant sees. are you going to sell to google or facebook? it has warped the ability of innovators in silicon valley to actually innovate according to market needs and ideas and instead everyone is guessing how can i develop something that facebook will buy

or that google will buy and that wantt necessarily how you an economy or an innovation sector to function. >> watch monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> next on american history tv the national constitution center loria conversation with ginsburg, discovering the life elizabeth cady stanton, the program begins with an overview of their forthcoming exhibit, the 19th amendment and how women won the vote. [applause] >> greetings, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the national constitution center. i'm jeffrey rosen, president of this wonderful institution. let us begin.

with theing ourselves congressional mission of the national constitution center. we are the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. beautiful, thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen. it just lifts the spirits and prepares us for the learning ahead. honoredo grateful and that you came tonight and grateful to c-span for covering this important discussion about women's suffrage and elizabeth stanton's role in it. during these anxious times, as many people are avoiding leaving large public gatherings, it's so important to engage in lifelong learning and that is why watching c-span is so important. please also here as well use the

national constitution center's virtual online resources to learn about the constitution. we have this spectacular new program called classroom exchanges where we unite classrooms across the country about theiscussions constitution moderated by judges and master teachers with classes around the country as you look for ways to continue your learning from home. check out the interactive constitution, pick up provisions of the constitution you don't know about. let the learning continue. we are going to begin tonight's discussion, which is devoted to lori ginsburg and her wonderful discussing this exciting new exhibit at the national constitution center that will open on june 10. it's called 19th amendment, women win the vote. is about the history of the 19th amendment and how women won

the vote. joining me to describe and discuss it is my wonderful colleague, elena, who heads the exhibits department here. i just wanted to have a brief conversation with her about what she and her great team are trying to achieve in the exhibit and the story they are trying to ofl, trying to excite all you about the exhibit and to set tothe great discussion follow. elena, first of all, welcome. thank you for being here. thank you to you in your team for the amazing job you have done. at seneca falls, elizabeth cady stanton and other great advocates of women's equality past the declaration of sentiments, which set among other things that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal. they were using the declaration of independence as a model but try to extended to include

women's equality. trying tothe authors achieve and why did they gather in seneca falls to write it? t-rex elizabeth was the primary author and it is amazing to look at the document itself. we will be featuring a copy in the upcoming exhibit. only featurenot the artifact, but the inspiration that came from the declaration. you can read the different grievances that she wrote against men instead of the king. we have featured those in the exhibit. , in theing in general time the use of the declaration of independence in argument for women's suffering, i have been -- calling forf a lot of quotes with speeches, congressional debates, rating

how women were fighting for the right to vote. they are frequently going back to those founding ideals in the declaration and saying no taxation without representation. they are central arguments were they say wait a minute, we were kind of left out from the founding era and we are going to rewrite that and say that all men and women are created equal. >> the relationship is so central to the exhibit. you and your team did such a wonderful job telling the story about civil war, reconstruction, and the promise of the declaration extended to african-americans in 1861, pledging that he didn't have an idea politically that didn't come from the declaration but in this exhibit you tell the story of the poignant fissure between african-americans and applicants -- advocates for women's suffrage who started off pre-civil war united.

frederick douglass was a great advocate for women's suffrage but after the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, the last of which extended the right to vote to african-american men but not women, the movements split. tell us about the split and the consequences. >> it's a significant story that we have started in the civil war reconstruction exhibit that is permanent here at the constitution center. we continue the story into the 19th amendment gallery, where you can see the roots of these arguments and how there was unification after the civil war towards a common cause. before that, it really being slavery, with slavery abolished andot to the 14th amendment are very critical word, male, is inserted into the constitution for the first time, upsetting many white women, particularly those that were fighting for a fridge.

they ultimately end up starting to split over the 14th amendment and ultimately with the 15th amendment, as jeff said, that guaranteed voting rights for african-american men, that was the final break. that there were women like stanton who were going to exclusively push for women's suffrage first, exclusively. they would not allow african-americans to get the vote before them. so, you see a lot of the racism that started to creep into the movement here and really become the forefront of the debate and really end up continuing through and i would be interested to hear what lori ginsburg has to say on this topic because it is really central to the narrative, how to address than racism -- the racism. we have different ways of approaching the narrative and for me it is helping visitors to understand the story.

for her, through books, talks, and lectures, she is able to show the narrative. i want to have the conversation about the different approaches to make sure that we chat -- we tell the truest narrative of the story. great, you're working crafting this script. the insertion of the word mail was so central. it showed that for the framers of the 14th amendment, they did not expect it would grant the right to vote because if southern states denied it to any male citizen, then the apportionment in congress would be correspondingly reduced. making it harder for women's suffrage after gets to argue as they did in the 1870's and 80's that it should be extended to women. you tell the story of people like victoria would hold, who argued before john bingham, the man who framed the amendment, as having rejected the claim. a very big and important part of the exhibit, you tell about how

it was one state-by-state, the right to vote. state-by-state, the right to vote. there were surprisingly a few thegranted it, but cap in 1870's and 1880's. why? brexit that point particularly in western territories they wanted to encourage women -- >> at that point particularly in western territories they wanted to encourage women to come. it was a prep -- a practical reason to attract more people who would be able to give them cause to apply for statehood. wyoming was the first. there are a lot of great illustrations from the time showing progress sweeping from the west to east. and then you start having people pushing for a constitutional amendment, a 16th amendment, the next in line. then you have a lot of women pushing at the state level for

change, hoping that it stays will and ultimately there be national change. it really propels the story into the 20th century where we look at this continuation of different tactics. towards the end there are these final few years where it gets dramatic and you are seeing a lot more of the photography that we are familiar with, picketing in front of the white house, parades, processions, all of these public is happening. ultimately with world war i you have this push to ultimately grant women the right to vote a truelly fulfill democracy. >> that leads to the final part of the exhibit, where you tell that incredibly dramatic story of how president wilson changes his position on the 19th amendment and the states are ratifying it and it all comes down to a very dramatic story in tennessee. give us a sense of what happened.

>> the lutz -- the youngest state legislature planned on voting no on ratification. this was the final state that was needed for it to become a part of the u.s. constitution. he received a letter from his mother that said -- you really should vote yes on this ratification. what does he do? he switches his vote at the last minute. nobody expected it. it pushes it over the edge and ultimately tennessee ratifies. it took one final vote to add it to the u.s. constitution. >> amazing. it shows how close politics are and how one vote can make all the difference. as it happens, in a great panel that we did in grand rapids on monday, it was about the electoral college. turns out that burch by proposed an amendment that would have eliminated the electoral college and had a popular vote for president. it passed the house with overwhelming bipartisan support

nixon, with george h.w. bush, give it to cause -- it would cause the fail in the senate. constitutional politics can indeed turn on one or two decisions. what are you most excited about displaying in the exhibit? so many great appetites -- artifacts and you have when our appetite with -- whet our appetite with. >> we will be getting the pennsylvania copy of the amendment. those of you from pennsylvania, that's kind of. we will be featuring an array of ephemera from the era, just women in various ways trying to get the right to vote and convince other people that they should have the right. there is a lot of cool imagery, a lot of posters. different buttons with pants on them or rolling pins.

a lot of visual cues there. one of my personal favorites will be featuring a ballot box from the reconstruction era, when some women were able to vote. this one i believe is from utah. a county printed on it. i tried to track down exactly where it is, utah allowed the -- allow women to vote early on. it has printed on it women's ballot. those are some of the highlights. >> that is wonderful. i'm so grateful to you and your team for doing such a great job creating this exhibit and i can't rate to share it with all of you on june 10. please join me in thanking elena. [applause] now, friends, we are so honored to hear from americans -- america's leading bagger for of

elizabeth caddy stanton, lori ginsburg. you will be hearing all about her remarkable life, lori will be interviewed by the head of sostitutional content, please join me in welcoming lana and lori. [applause] >> good evening. thank you, jeff. thank you, elana. i'm excited to continue the conversation with you about the exhibit and the conversation with lori. lori, thank you for being here to discuss her book on stanton and thank you for being a member of the national constitution center. thank you to the members out there for your support and coming to the program as well. your support makes it possible, welcome. lori, i want to start by asking you a little bit about stanton

and her life. before we do it, i will introduce you a bit more, telling about your background. you are a professor of history in women's studies at pennsylvania state university and you have written several books on women's history, including recently "untidy origins." the book that we are discussing tonight, elizabeth caddy stanton. mi pronouncing it right? >> i think that the pronounced -- correct pronunciation is caddy, but almost everyone says katie and i don't know why area >> well, tell us a little bit about her life. boring -- born in upstate new her relationship with her father i found really interesting is detailed in your book. >> first, thank you for having me here. it's a pleasure to come to the constitution center, always, and meet the people that make the extraordinary exhibits here.

elizabeth cady stanton is something i have always argued with. i have always -- i have written a number of books and she is always in the room. she is a fascinating character. charismatic, bossy, elitist. brilliant. she is quite amazing. i think that people who study u.s. women's history cannot help but grapple with her in some ways. i believe that for all of her flaws there is no one like her in the 19th century. born in johnstown, new york, her father was a judge and her mother was a descendent of a revolutionary war hero. they were white conservative. wealthy, property owning, slaveowning. thate often forget that was still the case in upstate new york. much of the north. traditional, as stanton remembered it, on matters of gender. the famous story that she told was that when she was 11, her last brother died, she crawled

into her father's lap seeking to give and receive comfort and he put his arm around her and said -- my daughter, i wish you were a boy. and they groans at that sting of the remark is certainly something many women feel. but it's not actually in a rational comment for a father of a brilliant daughter who recognized her life was going to be quite limited by the time and place in which she lived. there were not very many options for a wealthy young women -- woman born in 1915. she got the best education she could for girls, but she was always resentful that she didn't get to go to college with the themafter handily beating in all subjects in grade school. she took that resentment with her in making a life that was devoted to challenging all the many ways, and you will hear this said many times tonight, not really suffrage, always she spoke -- he felt that women's

spirits were crushed and their lives restricted by virtue of being girls. >> it's interesting that her father was very much opposed -- opposed to suffrage and she rebelled against that throughout her life. you hint that this may have been part of her motivation behind the work that she did. one thing that he did do was, being conscious of the laws that regulated women he put a lot of property in her name because he was maybe distrustful of husbands and the ways they would their wives as property. i thought that was interesting. the marriedapril, woman's property act passed in new york, giving married women the right to inherit property. it was fathers like judge caddy who supported this because they wanted their inherited wealth not to go to sons-in-law. not necessarily profligate ones,

but just unknown quantities. elizabeth cady stanton's husband, though he became a lawyer and was in the state senate for a while, he was not eaul off or a suitable bo when they met. elizabeth's father was clear that he would not be leaving property for him. only for her. cleaning house that they owned. for a conservative family to have their lively, brilliant daughter fall in love with a 35-year-old abolitionist lecturer, that was not the choice. at first the father forbade the marriage. whenever they got married and went on their honeymoon, they went to the world anti-slavery convention in london. >> a very momentous event in her life, her first time out of the country, interacting with these british women, very and danced

in the tactics that they were using of suffrage over the u.k., that was a powerful experience for her. >> at issue is mostly impressed with the american women that she met their. she met with a bunch of the anti-slavery society women who were elected by their local chapters of the anti-slavery society as delegates to london but when they got to the convention, the british quakers who were much more conservative on matters of gender, much more mainstream and british life, they barred the women from participating and put them outragede bar, which the young elizabeth cady stanton to no end and outraged others, too. garrison, among others, set behind the bar, refusing to participate because of the exclusion of groups. for stanton, she described it as a political turning point in her life, meeting lucretia mont and these other women who had for years already in the 1840's

being already struggling about these issues. >> you and jeff were just talking about the exhibit. we were talking about something presummit a false. just as important to the movement, the main focus of the exhibit drops you in at 1848 at the convention. so, you know, what's the approach to telling the story of , you know, stanton, her work ofor, incorporating the work the anti-slavery movement and the importance of that to suffrage? >> is interesting when you go to start an exhibit, you have a limited space. it's always -- you have to make important decisions at the get-go. where will we start in time? where will we end in time? it's not always clear-cut. decided to go with 1848. that doesn't mean that we don't acknowledge what's happening before.

historical events occurring before that, what was voting like at the founding is really important. we include the story of new jersey, their first state constitution allowed some women to vote, particularly if they help property. primarily widows. it's that early point where you understand where we are in time. what do i need to know for when we get to 1848 foot life was like for women? we tread the ground from the original constitution being written through 1848, reaching a peak in 1848 where we tell the story of stanton and we feature a lot of other women and men who were fighting for women's suffrage. you will be able to meet some of these women and men in an interactive element in the exhibit where we will feature bios for each of these individuals. stanton is one of them. you will get a little bit of her background and her influential

role. a writingesting for exhibit. there's only so much you can include. if you envision for any one person there must be about 50 words, which is about three sentences. it can be a herculean task just to get it down to that important nugget information. it's always interesting to think of how like lori is able to write a whole book on one person and i have maybe two or three spots in the exhibit if we are talking about the declaration of sentiment or stanton in particular. althoughd say that this book is about one person, i have written books about large groups of people, historians writing one book, we are always .n conversation with each other it's important to note that we disagree with each other. sitting at large tables, there are archivists doing different kinds of work. we are always in conversation question. of the same

what is the framework, what is the interpretation? the main difference to me is not so much between what we do as it is the temporal focus or the topical focus as the ways that we interpret stuff. from either is no women's suffrage movement in 1840. there isn't really one until after the civil war. these folks are all abolitionist . everyone who went to the convention had heard of women's rights before because they were anti-slaveryin the movement in one way or another. it's not just the anti-slavery provides context for women's suffrage and rights, though it the do that, but it was audience, the constituency, that school of abolition that launched their thinking and their careers. in different ways for different activists, of course. it's important to keep in mind, and it is very hard to do this,

very hard to understand how radical this all was. i have some tricks i do with students about this, but it is hard to understand that when the seneca falls convention demanded numerous, as you pointed out, a range of rights for women, the vote among them, when people demanded an end to slavery, it seems so obvious to us that we couldn't imagine how outrageous they were at the time and it was important to keep in mind that the lunatics were in a generation. people, people didn't want to be seen with them on the streets. it's hard to -- hard for us to do that. to remember that. falls, there was a large consensus it seemed around most of the points they were trying to make. such as seeking the right to vote and, to the extent that other women's suffragists said that you can't put this in there, people will think we're crazy, even her husband said

that it will seem like a farce, but she insisted in a got in there. >> can i explained a little bit? people have often, she included, have often thought that the dids who objected to it it so because they were timid or to limit -- politically cautious. i think that's not the case. people like lucretia mont didn't believe in working in electoral politics. they were nonvoting abolitionists. the men, too. they thought that politics were, hard for us to believe, dirty, corrupt, based in violence. they chose not to work in the world of electoral politics. when someone like her said that it is with great reluctance that she demanded to vote for women, even issue was demanding it, the reluctance was not because she was timid or conservative but because the vote was a fraud tool for what were called at the persuasion

abolitionists and reformers who didn't believe that voting was the best or most appropriate way to create moral change in a society. stanton, who thought she was the most radical person on the planet, always right, exaggerated other people's timidity about this. >> interesting. was lucy stone similar? theow that she founded american women's suffrage association that had a different approach to the one that they would go on to found. >> that's decades later. lucy stone was speaking as an anti-slavery agent and adding lectures on women's rights before stanton even thought to get on a podium a couple of years earlier. lucy stone saw a connection between demanding the end of slavery and an end to the restrictions on women's legal, political, what do we want to say, cultural lives. this is 20 years later, after the civil war.

the split occurred for a variety of reasons. you mentioned a kind of abolitionists versus women rights activists, but it is important to remember that many white women's rights activists sided with those who thought black men should get the vote first. some did not. pilot is a a cot -- complicated and interesting debate, they took ethical positions based on a different way of seeing the world. for stanton, the 13th amendment answered the -- ended the question of slavery. -- i wrotet she said this down, i just think it is a wonderful quote. 1868, the curtain had fallen on the last act, regarding "the knee grow question." "the lights are extinguished, the audience gone to their homes ."

this is in the face of enormous, vicious, racist violence that we know she read about. , anti-slavery stood more or less in prelude to what she saw as the more important rights for women like herself. other women didn't agree. african-american women as well as white women thought that it was more urgent in the crisis for black men to have the vote so that their communities could be represented. so, it's not really -- i would resist calling it a sort of black men versus white women let you there were many different kinds of splits. there were many different emergencies in the face of early reconstruction. >> i know that you are interested in hearing the thoughts about how to approach accurate way,ut presenting the history to a modern audience.

>> i think that stanton really thought she was taking the moral high ground, saying she believed in universal suffrage. you understand that they don't need to include children, and you laugh, but logically children are citizens as well. this is how unthinkable women's suffrage was too many people. it was similar to calling for votes for children. or analogous. they could have stuck to the moral high ground saying that the -- no one's rights should proceed anyone else's. instead of doing that she resorted to some rather extraordinarily ugly, racist remarks that still make us, that are still painful to read. she made them publicly, alienated her friends, including the ever loyal frederick douglass. he put up with a lot of grief from her.

you know, she didn't stick to the moral high ground that she could have. a political absolutist. absolutists can be thrilling, but they can also be sometimes wrong. and the stories about that. at interesting, too, though, because i think you describe she was very cautious about writing felt.anything that she she wrote a lot, but didn't write that this was how she felt about this subject for that subject, but was very aware that she was for trail of the suffrage movement but there were all of these other complications around what she was writing about. >> she didn't think it took away from her image. she thought she was right. that was not the part she worried about. like everybody, i think she had issues with her children. for such an advocate of

progressive womanhood, divorce, women's autonomy, she had seven children. virtually no other suffrage or activist leaders have that many children. she had a lot of children. at one point she referred to her seventh baby as her biannual clumsiness. had some ideashe of how not to have children but did anyway. like everybody, i think she had family difficulties. some of the children sided with her, some with her husband. somewhere the caretakers. you know, it's a complicated family and she destroyed a bunch of papers that would have given us more insight. price with her relationship with susan b anthony, who had her own obligations without children, but as you think about it for she serves stanton and the children she had around her, wondering how you are able to do all the work with children in the household, it's a challenge some still struggle with.

>> there was a quaker woman who stayed with her for 35 years, anthony would show up and help. it was probably chaotic. there were times when she couldn't be on the road, so she would be home and writing, which is what she loved anyways, writing speeches and thinking. we describe her as the founder of the women's suffrage movement, but she described herself as a leader of thought him a not. she was much happier staying home rather than going to conventions, which she felt were boring. when we read accounts of conventions, they will say that she gave this speech, but really she wrote it and anthony read it for her. because she didn't like it. was a wasyou said it immediately after when they had different conventions, she didn't want to go. >> she just loved what she called throwing thunder.

she loved the riling up her friends. great quote that i was hoping we could use some day, i'm saving this for the distant future, on her 75th birthday she said that her feeling is to tone up rather than tone down. you know? that's a great motto. i have to think that her friend susan b anthony never worried much about her toning down. she would fat -- you would have preferred her to focus because she believed that women's suffrage was the primary goal and everybody needed to focus in stanton didn't, she was always on the next great cause. they both did was in the midst of the various strategies, pursuing the 19th state forms,e finance of the full strength of , you mentioned november 2

1880, we were talking about that new civet. maybe describe a little bit what the thinking was behind going to the polls to try to vote? >> jeff mentioned this earlier, there was a practice called the came uprture that they with, which was that the 14th amendment granted women citizenship and they were entitled to vote in they just should do it. it started early with a number of women in washington dc went to vote and there were dozens of women all over the country, new jersey, a good place to go vote. than the -- susan b. anthony went and voted and got arrested, he came a big celebrity. the judge, for reasons that had anye, asked if she final words to say at the end of her trial. [laughter]

which has always struck me as such a full listing because of course she gave a speech and published and distributed it around the country. she refused to pay the $100 fine. it became a big deal. because she was no voting, shtick's a seriously. voting is never symbolic. we know this. she decided that the two candidates were awful enough to one was slightly better than the other. she voted for grant and it was hard. i think in 1880 when she decided to vote, it was a symbolic act on her part. there is a funny story where the person who takes your ballot, he wanted to buy her ticket. she kept it and he signed his

name. it is very cool. she made it a big deal but it and thename the cause she was on to other causes anyway. >> the ballot box we have, is that from this area? >> yes. thinking that it is a place where will they have granted women the right to vote, we think it was not meant for women were tryingte but to. we pair that with the story of the women voting under this new department strategy -- departure strategy. i was learning about this. it was a constitutional story. the 14thusing amendment and saying we are citizens. therefore, we have the right to vote. they got new amendments ratified.

there having a range of experiences. when we think of how to convey information to different types of learners, everyone in here has a different way they prefer to learn. great if you do that. this particular story we decided to tell through an interactive. will be ballot boxes that you will be able to list out and learn about different women's stories. one is carrie, a great philadelphia story. she went to the polls in 1871 and tried to vote here and failed to do so. they said yes, you are a citizen, but it does not mean that you get to vote.

that was ultimately an early ruling that would lead to the supreme court ruling a couple of years later in 1875. at the end of the new departure points, when the supreme court ruled on it. thewe wanted to have opportunity for people to engage with these stories and connect with people who are maybe from your hometown, that you can learn about what you're trying to do in this important era. >> you write that she has a great intellect and was influence by her father and her judge. what was her role? >> she realized right away this was a great strategy. she was not supportive of victoria, who in 1872 ran for president. supportright there to

the first woman to run for president. she said whatever you do, do not put my name on any list for victoria passes presidency and it -- she responded by doing exactly that. she was quite an independent thinker. otto is a self-aware one. >> you write that there was this conviction that she as an american citizen, with respect to what was being said about citizenship, she was entitled to vote based on that and that that was a conviction she had. what came out to be ugly racism in a debate over the 15th amendment, i think there was a bone deep conviction that as a daughter of american revolutionaries and as a white, protestant, middle-class woman, she was as the men of her class

onlyer background, and the disability she experienced since she was smarter than all of them anyway, it was the disability of sex. it was on the spaces of profound entitlement, that i think she thought she should have all the rights and not only the vote, the right to an education, the right to property, the right to vote. that became things very much a part of what we take for granted. that sheer conviction thevery much a member of elite, of the founders of the nation, it was very important to her. a part wheree is she expresses outrage. -- both most ignorant and foreigners had.

that is not in the battle over the 15th amendment. thatad a sense early on she was march serving, for lack of a better word, and people who were given more rights than she was. -- boas good as the voice ys," that kind of attitude. plays into later >> it is really her daughter who is upset about this. maybe we could get more suffered if we just -- educated women. this was a time after 1880, when more and more immigrants were coming into the united states. many of them not english speakers. back between 1880 in 1920, there were a lot of the tie-ins, most of them catholic.

and stan pretty easily joined with the forces that would limit suffrage to england. her daughter, who had moved to england, was outraged by this. she viewed this as her mother's great failing, that elitism has taken a hold of her in this way and that she would succumb to snobbery -- that snobbery. i do not know what anthony thought about it so much. >> did we cover her relations with her daughter? >> yes. we have to does moments. i alluded to the one earlier. there are basically three generations because it is about a 70 year. .

people andmeet these we highlight harriet at the beginning with a photo of her with her baby daughter, harriet, who leave the -- who we know becomes -- she pops up later, working for the same causes her mother was working for all stop we try and do the same with other connections like lucy and her daughter as well. especially in philadelphia here, interesting, -- to continue the abolitionist roots, really going through the suffrage movement as well. >> toward the end of her life, you're right about how she did not travel as much although she was quite famous at the time. she died in 1902, still 18 years before the night teen's amendment was ratified.

what would she doing toward the end of her life to continue to help the cause of suffrage? >> i agree, it is unfortunate she did not live to see the ninth amendment ratified, but there is a whole thing about how she died so soon but 87 at that time was not so soon. by the end of her life, she really got bored. she and anthony sat down to write down the rights of his -- limit suffrage. in part together sources that would appear but also to establish their role as leaders of the movement and to shape the movement in a particular way. things, isdifferent at -- if anyone is interested in more readings. a wonderful book has been written on the subject. she then decided she wanted to

rewrite the bible. she was an ardent secularist. the word did not exist. very skeptical. deeply protestant in many ways. but very skeptical. opposed the efforts to change the rules. tried to gather women from around the world. there was not a word for it. her friends were very annoyed with her about this. like really?ere you are going to spend your time on this when there is so much work to be done? waswas adamant that this important late in life work for her. so she wrote this book, she edited it, and was chastised and censored for -- by her own organization and movement for it.

by the 1890's, the movement was getting the support. who believed the woman's suffrage would game a purified home and so on. things that they were struggling for. they were not so interested in alienating the clergy. as an continued to be respectable and annoying as she could even within her own -- focus about -- what was the status where most of them were being repealed? >> yes. there are still unequal laws. it was not until the 1930's that you as an american woman, if you marry a farmer come you lost

your citizenship. some american women discovered it. there certainly -- and all of our lifetimes. discriminatory laws against women but the laws of property ownership had changed. even by the 1860's, many laws had changed. there are still complicated laws about domestic labor. >> and the issue, you're right the issue of divorce is another controversial one that she wanted to fight for but it created tension with religious suffragists and she did not necessarily want to fight the fight. >> that is right. a minister by training, just about want to touch the idea ort marriage was nearly primarily a legal contract that could be broken. but the women were also advocates. the argument was women should be

able to divorce struck in husband's. there was an ongoing debate bringing upas worth in the context of women's convention. she was ready to bring up anything. and not everyone would do that. she was not strategic, i think it is fair to say that. >> we have a great number of audience questions. is there anything you want to ask, that she could help guide us on? reasons, we have been focusing on a particular period of time. but plenty comes after 1902 and plenty comes after 1920. as i mentioned, how we grapple what you, i'm curious most want to convey to people about what the 19th amendment did or did not do.

>> that is a great question and a complicated one. convey, thing i would is before the passage of the 19th amendment, millions of women already voted. 15 states had full women's severed and others had presidential savage, which i never understood. other states have partial suffrage. so millions of women could vote before the 19th amendment. i understand in the context of a museum, devoted to the constitution, it makes sense to focus on that, but millions of women could vote prior to it but also many women could not vote after. equally eat -- it is important to point that out. many native format -- native american women and chinese women who were not able to become citizens, many women in territories, i recently and that recently learned that women in puerto rico did not get the vote

and only got the vote nine years later from pressure from the u.s. congress. for the 19th amendment, it is an interesting moment and act to commemorate. , to any kind of celebration of it as accomplishing much, but it may deal,ccomplished a great african-american women in the south to try and register to vote and white southerners , we had historians writing about this, white southerners recognized it would take a lot of work to disenfranchise twice the number of people they had been disenfranchising. i mean that not sarcastically. it took work to set in place this and more people to disenfranchise the status quo. exhibit, wet the

touch on what the other advances includingrights, constitutional amendments pass in the right to vote as well -- as well. >> there is an understanding that for the people who could vote, what were they going for? pursuing the e.r.a., others laborng legislation for laws, minimum wages, that kind of staff, and all the other people who could not vote, what was their struggle like? how did they continue to fight for that and how did that play out? >> african-american women in particular who went to the suffrage organizations, acting expanding black suffrage, we're basically told is over. they were not given any assistance in doing that. >> i want to get to questions before we wrap up.

it first question, what was that allowed this lunatic fringe to develop? along the.new york canal, has been known as the brand over district. revivals, ministers had revival through the 1820's in 1830's. mostly,re quakers, but president -- protestants of various types. the miller writes, millennialist, all kinds of colts and groups emerged. became more or less mainstream social justice. some became extremely right-wing . others became utopian communities. just a lot going on there. ofthat helped to spend some

the feminist suffrages, to the work they did? >> yes. a number of years ago, i wrote a book that you mentioned, about six women in jefferson county to new york, way up on the canadian border. 1846, they petitioned state .onstitutional conventions these are six virtually unknown they did not then go to the convention. they disappeared from history. i think it was not outrageous in their communities. >> and the west as well is when many territories grant the woman to write -- the right to vote. that may have also been a practical reason to encourage women to move there. right to vote moves across

the country over time. great. you mentioned the women's christian tent -- union. how does a package of the 19th amendment influence or spread the 21stassage of amendment or it was their cross over from suffrage to temperance? .> that is the 18th amendment prohibition was 18th amendment that came before the women's suffrage amendment. i think it probably had a lot to do with small protestant women who could already vote in many towns and states. they had a lot to do with in ang the 18th amendment couple of years prior. suffrage arguments formally organizing around the et 90's, a lot of them are coming from the liquor industry and very practical. they will likely vote for prohibition. remember,mportant to .here were powerful forces

it was not just that women were too delicate to vote. that had long been solved. women were in all areas of public life. i do not know who still believed that by the et 90's or whenever. were powerful forces against women voting coming couldn't by women, very conservative women who believed this would bring out other radical behaviors. i actually have a great quote on this. the woman patriot came out, devoted to not passing women's suffrage and allowing socialism and all this stuff. at one point, they said, after women's suffrage had passed and was ratified, they had all these lawsuits to undermine it. let us remember that women's the 15this tied to

amendment, forced upon -- this was many decades after black men had been disenfranchised in the south. they are still bent out of shape at the 15th amendment because they recognize this goes together. say, nobody but the mentally blind ever expected the feminist movement to stop the vote. they go on to quote from a magazine edited by margaret -- this idea that to -- demand for women's rights was a slippery slope, it is true. whatctually do not know you are stepping up onto when you make an outrageous demand. it actually was true. >> another question asks, when women got the first right to

any, what did they have on sort of election outcomes? i do not know if you know the age limits at the time? they had less of an impact than they said they would. they didn't although the same. actspassed a couple of that were sort of progressive government helping clean up milk, things we take for granted. read one story that said the passage of women's suffrage was a bit of a dead for -- a bit of a side, because it did not lead to the kinds of dramatic changes people expected to have. did notier generation actually think women suffrage would lead to this but secure legislation.

would make women more fully citizens of the united states. that is just harder to measure. think they would have been quite shocked to learn that more than half of white women voted against the presumed first woman president. will close with my final question and i will give you a any questions you may have. what your thoughts on what her legacy is today, and how this average -- >> it is a good news and bad news thing. none of us would be willing to ,ive up the rights demanded that she viewed as individual rights we all have. i think she was brilliant at

establishing certain rights as being essential for women. at the same time, i think the kind of assumption, the entitlement and racism in her thinking and writing have left a legacy for us and feminism that is very hard to address and eradicate. i think those are damaging things that are not just slips of the tongue. i think they are damaging to all of us. >> we are currently in an anniversary year, which is why we are having these conversations around the 19th amendment. he pointed out earlier the differences between using the word celebrate and commemorate. how do you feel we should commemorate this amendment? thatwas making the point celebrating means there is a

happy ending and is a happy story and i do not think it is a happy story. there is a wonderful awesome for the referred to herself and many of us as a feminist killjoy, always out to ruin a good celebration. i think commemorate she is important because it makes us think about our history. we live at a time where people are talking about statues and flags in the names on buildings and the names at universities, all of these things are part of commemorating a history we need to explore thoroughly and i think there are wonderful exhibit and washington, d.c., about the 19th amendment with different points of view -- not different points of view. a look with different interpretations. i think it is great we have this conversation, historians figuring out how all of this stuff is complicated and then, how do we put it in a visual way that is accessible to the most number of people.

>> thank you so much. thank you for being here. [applause] >> i hope you will come back. >> thanks again. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] ♪

>> you're watching american history tv, covering tv history style. archival films, lectures and college classrooms, and visits to museums and historic places. all weekend, every weekend, on .-span three >> television changed since these and began years ago but the mission continues to provide unfiltered view of government. we have brought your primary election coverage.

you can watch all of c-span's's affairs programming on television, online, or listen on the free radio app. be part of the national conversation on the washington journal program. c-span, created by private industry as a public service, brought to you today by her television provider. >> every saturday night, american history tv takes you to college classrooms around the country for lectures in history. >> raise your hand if you would ever heard of the gene harris murder trial before this class? where we will find the true meaning of the revolution, was in the transformation that took place in the minds of the american people. wesley we will talk about both

sides of the stories. we will talk about the practice byf power the people. >> watch history professors lead discussions -- lectures in history on c-span3 every saturday on american history tv and lectures in history is available as a podcast. >> next on lectures in history, virginia commonwealth university professor nicole myers turner discusses the lives of formerly enslaved african americans following emancipation. she explains how they defined freedom for themselves while the federal government debated political and legal definitions. professor turner also discusses the important role of educational and religious institutions in wl