Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In “Chapter 20: War, Slavery, and the American 1848” of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz briefly discusses the roots of the women’s rights movement and its connection to abolitionism. The Seneca Convention, which was held in July 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, was the first major American convention devoted to women’s suffrage. Led by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Stanton, the Seneca Convention issued a declaration that affirmed that “all men and women are created equal”—an alteration to the original United States’ Declaration of Independence. Wilentz argues that the Seneca Convention was not merely concerned with women’s suffrage, but was an extension of the growing anti-slavery contingency. According to Wilentz, the Seneca Convention was “a logical extension of the fight for liberty, equality, and independence being waged by the antislavery forces” (334). While I agree with Wilentz’s assessment that a definitive relationship existed between the struggle for women’s rights and abolition, he failed to acknowledge how this association negatively impacted the short-term successes of the women’s rights movement.
When the Civil War erupted, the leading women’s rights’ activists decided to put the anti-slavery movement to the forefront, in hopes that the abolition of slavery would pave the way for women’s suffrage to occur shortly thereafter. The women believed that dedication to the Northern, anti-slavery cause would draw attention to the necessity for constitutional equality on the basis of race and gender. Unfortunately, the end of the Civil War did not introduce increased attention to women’s rights—the 14th Amendment uses the word “male” three times in its definition of citizenship, thus exemplifying Congress’s dedication to a male-dominated social and political hierarchy in America.
While my classmates have not yet commented on chapters 17-20 of Wilentz, Kurt noted in his blog post from last Thursday that Wilentz does an effective job identifying the roots behind the loss of Democratic support in the South. In regard to the foundations of the women’s rights movement, I agree with Kurt that Wilentz introduces the subject to his readers in an effective way, as he links different historical issues into the greater context of American history. Similar to Kurt’s critique that Wilentz left out necessary details to strengthen his argument concerning the leadership dynamics within the Whig party, I wish he had discussed the implications of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery on women’s rights. Specifically, I think it is very interesting that the leaders of the women’s rights movement split into two separate factions during Reconstruction. Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony formed the National Suffrage Association, and racist references dominated the rhetoric of their cause. In contrast, Lucy Stone’s American Suffrage Association supported the 15th Amendment and did not consider black suffrage a threat to the eventual success of gender equality. While I recognize that the women’s rights movement was not central to Wilentz’s argument, I believe that the interesting dynamics between the two movements should have been addressed in greater detail.
Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009.