Elizabeth Cady Stanton and committee
July 19, 1848 

Declaration of Sentiments

      When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

      We hold these truths to be self - evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

      The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

      He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

      He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

      He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both native and foreigner.

      Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

      He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

      He has taken from her all right in property, even to wages she earns.

      He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they can be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

      He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to who, the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, giving all power into his hands.

      After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

      He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

      He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.

      He allows her in Church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

      He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.

      He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.

      He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self - respect and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

      Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation - in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.

      In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and National legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions embracing every part of the county.

Resolutions

      Whereas, The great precept of nature is conceded to be, that "man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness". Blackstone in his Commentaries remarks, that this law of Nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid, derive their force, and all their validity, and all their authority mediately and immediately from this original; therefore,

      Resolved, That all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and therefore of no force or authority.

      Resolved, That woman is man's equal - was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.

      Resolved, That the women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they live, that they may no longer publish their degradation by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want.

      Resolved, That inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority, it is pre-eminently his duty to encourage her to speak and teach, as she has an opportunity, in all religious assemblies.

      Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

      Resolved, That the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience, comes with a very ill-grace from those who encourage, by their attendance, her appearance on the stage, in the concert, or in feats of circus.

      Resolved, That woman has too long rested satisfied in the circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the Scriptures have marked out for her, and that it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her great Creator has assigned her.

      Resolved, That it is the duty of women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.

      Resolved, That the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.

      Resolved, That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to women an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions, and commerce.

      Resolved, therefore, That, being invested by the creator with the same capabilities, and the same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self - evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as a self - evident falsehood, and at war with mankind.

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions

Woman's Rights Convention, Held at Seneca Falls, 19-20 July 1848

On the morning of the 19th, the Convention assembled at 11 o'clock. . . . The Declaration of Sentiments, offered for the acceptance of the Convention, was then read by E. C. Stanton. A proposition was made to have it re-read by paragraph, and after much consideration, some changes were suggested and adopted. The propriety of obtaining the signatures of men to the Declaration was discussed in an animated manner: a vote in favor was given; but concluding that the final decision would be the legitimate business of the next day, it was referred.

[In the afternoon] The reading of the Declaration was called for, an addition having been inserted since the morning session. A vote taken upon the amendment was carried, and papers circulated to obtain signatures. The following resolutions were then read:

Whereas, the great precept of nature is conceded to be, "that man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness," Blackstone, in his Commentaries, remarks, that this law of Nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.1  It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid, derive all their force, and all their validity, and all their authority, mediately and immediately, from this original; Therefore,

Resolved, That such laws as conflict, in any way, with the true and substantial happiness of woman, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and of no validity; for this is "superior in obligation to any other.

Resolved, That all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and therefore of no force or authority.

Resolved, That woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.

Resolved, That the women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they -live, that they may no longer publish their degradation, by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want.

Resolved, That inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority, it is pre-eminently his duty to encourage her to speak, and teach, as she has an opportunity, in all religious assemblies.

Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior, that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same tranegressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

Resolved, That the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience, comes with a very ill grace from those who encourage, by their attendance, her appearance on the stage, in the concert, or in the feats of the circus.

Resolved, That woman has too long rested satisfied in the circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the Scriptures have marked out for her, and that it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her great Creator has assigned her.2

Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.3

Resolved, That the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.

Resolved, therefore, That, being invested by the Creator with the same capabilities, and the same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause, by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth, growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as self-evident falsehood, and at war with the interests of mankind.
 

Thursday Morning.

The Convention assembled at the hour appointed, James Mott, of Philadelphia, in the Chair. The minutes of the previous day having been read, E. C. Stanton again read the Declaration of Sentiments, which was freely discussed . . . and was unanimously adopted, as follows:

Declaration of Sentiments.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men—both natives and foreigners.

Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.4

He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.5

He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women—the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education—all colleges being closed against her.6

He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

He has created a false public sentiment, by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf.We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.

Firmly relying upon the final triumph of the Right and the True, we do this day affix our signatures to this declaration.

At the appointed hour the meeting convened. The minutes having been read, the resolutions of the day before were read and taken up separately. Some, from their self-evident truth, elicited but little remark; others, after some criticism, much debate, and some slight alterations, were finally passed by a large majority.7

[At an evening session] Lucretia Mott offered and spoke to the following resolution:

Resolved, That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.

The Resolution was adopted.

Report of the Woman's Rights Convention, Held at Seneca Falls, N.Y., July 19th and 20th, 1848 (Rochester, 1848).

Unbelief during the Civil War

Perhaps the most telling comments about the status of secular thought during the 19th century comes from the following passage of Susan Jacoby's book,

Today's Christian conservatives frequently use the slogan "let's put God back into the Constitution," thereby implying that "secular humanists" have managed to overturn what was originally intended to be a marriage of church and state. Nineteenth-century clerics knew better and were honest about their desire to reverse what they regarded as the founders' erroneous decision to separate church and state.

The late nineteenth-century was merely a foreshadowing of the kinds of vitriol that would be poured out on our elected leaders in recent decades. "In God We Trust" was first engraved onto our currency during the end of the Civil War and was soon made the butt of a number of jokes, such as "In gold we trust" during the debates surrounding the removal of U.S. currency from the gold standard.

Theodore Roosevelt, one of the most devout Christians ever to be elected president, attempted in 1907 to dispense with the motto precisely because of the sacrilegious puns. He succeeded only in arousing a storm of criticism from ministers who had previously been among his strongest supporters. Roosevelt, who had dubbed Paine a "filthy little atheist," was himself called an infidel for his attempt to remove God from American money."

Ah, the irony is overwhelming.

The Great Agnostic

Much as Thomas Paine was perhaps the most reviled infidel of his time, Robert Green Ingersoll was much admired and called the Great Agnostic. Ingersoll wrote many pamphlets during his time (c. 1870-1899), including the Gods and Other Lectures and Some mistakes of Moses.

Unlike today, the American people often went to see speakers give lectures. In fact, you could make quite a living going on the lecture circuit. Ingersoll was an extremely popular speaker with many connections to the Republican party of the day. In many of his talks he did not pull any punches in his ridicule of religious belief and social issues such as slavery and women's rights.

From the Gods and other lectures, after quoting Deuteronomy chapter 20 from the Old Testament detailing the slaughter of men and the... uh... acquisition of the women,

Is it possible for man to conceive of anything more perfectly infamous? Can you believe that such directions were given by any being except an infinite fiend? Remember that the army receiving these instructions was one of invasion. Peace was offered upon condition that the people submitting should be the slaves of the invader; but if any should have the courage to defend their homes, to fight for the love of wife and child, then the word was to spare none - not even the prattling, dimpled babe.

And we are called upon to worship such a god; to get upon our knees and tell him that he is good, that he is merciful, that he is just, that he is love.

...

The book, called the bible, is filled with passages equally horrible, unjust and atrocious. This is the book to be read in schools in order to make our children loving, kind and gentle! This is the book to be recognized in our Constitution as the source of all authority and justice!

Reading Ingersoll is like reading Dawkins or particularly Hitchens. In fact, I dare say The God Delusion and god is not great are modern day versions of the very lectures that Ingersoll was so famously recognized for and the Four Horseman are so roundly criticized for.

FreeThought Activism

I don't want to make it sound like the late-nineteenth century was a free and unfettered time to be a freethinker. In fact, the roots of what would ultimately become the "red scare" and much of the McCarthy-ist persecution was beginning to take root at this time particularly during the turn of the century. I will wait to delve into those issues with the next post, FreeThought in the 20th Century.

Among perhaps one of the most astounding things of the mid to late-1800's was the prevalence of Freethought literature, newspapers and pamphlet printing organizations. Throughout the 1800's FreeThought periodicals began popping up everywhere, the most famous of the bunch would be D.M. and Mary Bennett's Truth Seeker. Some of the other periodicals were the Boston Investigator, the Blue Grass Blade, the Free-Thought Ideal and Free-Thought Vindicator, and my personal favorite the Lucifer, the Light-Bearer. Of course, like all "movements" they are rarely centralized and cooridinated as evidenced by the Iconoclast of Austin, Texas run by William Cowper Brann, a strident racist who was ultimately shot in the back by an enraged Baptist. The diversity of thought among those who wore the FreeThought banner was loosely held together by the almost universal opposition to organized religion and their support for a clear separation of church and state.

During this time period the roots of feminism were planted beginning with attempts to gain women the right to vote and the dissemination of information regarding contraception. There are so many famous figures from the women's rights movement who came to fame during this time period, William Lloyd Garrison, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony and Ernestine L. Rose.

There are so many things that happened during this time period that I have only barely scratched the surface. I only glossed over Ingersoll's life and almost the entirety of the women's suffrage movement and spoke nothing about the emancipation of the slaves and Abraham Lincoln's beliefs. I guess you'll just have to read the book ;)

One hundred forty-three years ago, women's suffrage advocate Elizabeth Cady Stanton faced a conundrum: With the Civil War over, Stanton had to decide whether to support the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, which enabled black men to vote -- at a time when white women such as herself still did not have that right.

The question of what to do when the interests of two groups that had long suffered discrimination clashed with each other split the feminist movement. In order to gain passage of the 19th Amendment, which in 1920 gave women the right to vote, leading feminists jettisoned issues important to African Americans to win support from women and politicians who would have nothing to do with people of color. Without the support of the racists, the amendment might have failed, said Kimberle Crenshaw, professor of constitutional and civil rights law at Columbia University and UCLA.

There were two ironies in this: Stanton, like many other suffragists, was a passionate abolitionist. And in the years before she made her derogatory remark about "Sambo," abolitionists had treated women in exactly the same manner -- excluding them from equal participation in the movement merely because they were female.

The political alliance that the suffragists built helped pass the 19th Amendment, but it drove a wedge into the women's movement. Over the long term, just as relegating women to second-class citizens weakened the campaign for civil rights, abandoning solidarity with people of color weakened the women's movement."

Without doubt, the women's suffrage movement was composed of mostly white, middle-class women.  That goes for not only the US movement, but also Canada, UK and others that I'm not so familiar with.  Because the US was mired in the issue of slavery and abolition, the movement there took on particularly profound racism and the "herstory" is deeply problemmatic as a result.  However, feminism in Canada and UK was not, by any means, immune and, in fact, US feminism being as influential as it was, feminisms outside the US were deeply affected by it.

If the painful problems experienced during the US Democratic nomination campaign with respect to race and gender continue to spark renewed, respectful, reflective and meaningful discussions about feminisms past and present and racism, perhaps something hopeful unifying will begin to emerge.

Unbelief during the Civil War

Perhaps the most telling comments about the status of secular thought during the 19th century comes from the following passage of Susan Jacoby's book,

Today's Christian conservatives frequently use the slogan "let's put God back into the Constitution," thereby implying that "secular humanists" have managed to overturn what was originally intended to be a marriage of church and state. Nineteenth-century clerics knew better and were honest about their desire to reverse what they regarded as the founders' erroneous decision to separate church and state.

The late nineteenth-century was merely a foreshadowing of the kinds of vitriol that would be poured out on our elected leaders in recent decades. "In God We Trust" was first engraved onto our currency during the end of the Civil War and was soon made the butt of a number of jokes, such as "In gold we trust" during the debates surrounding the removal of U.S. currency from the gold standard. 

Theodore Roosevelt, one of the most devout Christians ever to be elected president, attempted in 1907 to dispense with the motto precisely because of the sacrilegious puns. He succeeded only in arousing a storm of criticism from ministers who had previously been among his strongest supporters. Roosevelt, who had dubbed Paine a "filthy little atheist," was himself called an infidel for his attempt to remove God from American money." 

Ah, the irony is overwhelming.

The Great Agnostic

Much as Thomas Paine was perhaps the most reviled infidel of his time, Robert Green Ingersoll was much admired and called the Great Agnostic. Ingersoll wrote many pamphlets during his time (c. 1870-1899), including the Gods and Other Lectures and Some mistakes of Moses.

Unlike today, the American people often went to see speakers give lectures. In fact, you could make quite a living going on the lecture circuit. Ingersoll was an extremely popular speaker with many connections to the Republican party of the day. In many of his talks he did not pull any punches in his ridicule of religious belief and social issues such as slavery and women's rights.

From the Gods and other lectures, after quoting Deuteronomy chapter 20 from the Old Testament detailing the slaughter of men and the... uh... acquisition of the women,

Is it possible for man to conceive of anything more perfectly infamous? Can you believe that such directions were given by any being except an infinite fiend? Remember that the army receiving these instructions was one of invasion. Peace was offered upon condition that the people submitting should be the slaves of the invader; but if any should have the courage to defend their homes, to fight for the love of wife and child, then the word was to spare none - not even the prattling, dimpled babe.

And we are called upon to worship such a god; to get upon our knees and tell him that he is good, that he is merciful, that he is just, that he is love.

...

The book, called the bible, is filled with passages equally horrible, unjust and atrocious. This is the book to be read in schools in order to make our children loving, kind and gentle! This is the book to be recognized in our Constitution as the source of all authority and justice!

Reading Ingersoll is like reading Dawkins or particularly Hitchens. In fact, I dare say The God Delusion and god is not great are modern day versions of the very lectures that Ingersoll was so famously recognized for and the Four Horseman are so roundly criticized for.

FreeThought Activism

I don't want to make it sound like the late-nineteenth century was a free and unfettered time to be a freethinker. In fact, the roots of what would ultimately become the "red scare" and much of the McCarthy-ist persecution was beginning to take root at this time particularly during the turn of the century. I will wait to delve into those issues with the next post, FreeThought in the 20th Century.

Among perhaps one of the most astounding things of the mid to late-1800's was the prevalence of Freethought literature, newspapers and pamphlet printing organizations. Throughout the 1800's FreeThought periodicals began popping up everywhere, the most famous of the bunch would be D.M. and Mary Bennett's Truth Seeker. Some of the other periodicals were the Boston Investigator, the Blue Grass Blade, the Free-Thought Ideal and Free-Thought Vindicator, and my personal favorite the Lucifer, the Light-Bearer. Of course, like all "movements" they are rarely centralized and cooridinated as evidenced by the Iconoclast of Austin, Texas run by William Cowper Brann, a strident racist who was ultimately shot in the back by an enraged Baptist. The diversity of thought among those who wore the FreeThought banner was loosely held together by the almost universal opposition to organized religion and their support for a clear separation of church and state.

During this time period the roots of feminism were planted beginning with attempts to gain women the right to vote and the dissemination of information regarding contraception. There are so many famous figures from the women's rights movement who came to fame during this time period, William Lloyd Garrison, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony and Ernestine L. Rose.

There are so many things that happened during this time period that I have only barely scratched the surface. I only glossed over Ingersoll's life and almost the entirety of the women's suffrage movement and spoke nothing about the emancipation of the slaves and Abraham Lincoln's beliefs. I guess you'll just have to read the book ;)

More in this series:

• Revolutionary FreeThought
• The Golden Age of FreeThought (You Are Here)
• FreeThought in the 20th Century
• The Future of FreeThought

Once again, my stomach was ruling the course of my day.  I felt queasy, tired and irritable.  My stomach hurt for most of the day, which was unpleasant.  I was thinking about the books out there on Celiac disease and gluten intolerance, and they are all pretty much about diet and recipes.  There are no books out there, that I have found, that really focus on the symptoms, replapses and lifestyle issues that affect those dealing with the disease.  There are no books that really explain what it's like to live with Celiac before cutting the gluten out, and what it's like once you attempt to cut out gluten. 

I figured, when I do put this blog into a book, I will have to really focus on that - because it's really what's been dominating my life this year - the struggles with following such a strict diet, the sickness and mood issues that come with it.

I spent the first part of the day in  meetings, including a wine tasting to evaluate the progress of the 2007 vintage.  It was really interesting to taste where the wines are now and to see where they are going.  The whites, that are already in the bottle, were vibrant but still a little tight.  But they were lovely.  And the diffent blocks of vineyard selections of Pinot Noir were supple, lush, with good fruit - albiet with some intrigue that for a moment makes you wonder - is this off?   But it's not.  It's actully too soon to really evaluate these wines because they are still evolving in the barrel. 

The winemaker indicated he was pleased with where the wine are at this point, and taught us about what's going on with the wine at this point, and our vineyard manager chimed in with information of what happened in the vineyard during the last vintage to help us with our assessment and learning.  It was a really great exercise.

In the afternoon I got a phone call from a friend of mine from back east.  We worked for the same distributor and came out to Pinot Camp back in 2004.  I always admired him for his great palate and wine knowledge, he's a cool guy and like a big brother.  He and his wife were in town with his boss to meet up with their suppliers.  I met them for dinner at Tina's in Dundee.  Some other friends were there from two other wineries, so it ended up being one big wine industry dinner.  I had scallops wrapped in bacon, a greens salad with hazelnuts and the duckbreast with cooked greens and risotto.  The table ordered a bottle of pink bubbly, a Riesling, a Pinot Noir and then a fun Bordeaux blend from Red Mountain in Washington.

After, we went to the back room at Nick's in McMinnville.  We met up with another wine country couple.  It was good fun to hang out.  I was happy to hang out with my former co-worker and to get to know his wife.  She's a remarkable woman - a professional cellist.  I told them that they had to come back and that they had a free place to stay.  So, hopefully they'll come back with their daughter.

To end my day,  I was on my way home, driving down 99/The Pacific Highway toward Tigard and I thought more about this election.  I was actually upset with women in America.  I know you shouldn't vote for someone just for their gender, just as you shouldn't vote for someone on one issue.  But, for the women who are backing Obama at this point, I can't help but to wonder if they subconsciously believe that only a man can lead our country. 

From the beginning of time, women have been put in a place below men.  We still make .75 to each $1.00 men make.  Interestingly enough, though, there are more women in higher education in America then men.  And yet I think some women still subscribe to archaic ideas, whether they realize it or not.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  But, I struggle with understanding why women, who are in the majority in the US, would not wholeheartedly support the first woman who can actully beat the challenger!  Why aren't they stepping up and putting Hillary in that position? 

And then I wondered, are there some women who are judging Hillary unfairly, like the catty women who look you over in the gym and fire away mean glances oozing with their judginess?  I certainly hope not.  Now is the time when I hope women can come together and support the sacred feminine - our important position in society as the nurturers, caregivers, compassionate beings and powerful mothers -we are the ones that carry and deliver life.  It's time, ladies.  IT IS TIME.

We are in the majority.  It is time to hear our voice.  We are women - hear us roar and let us take care of our wounded nation.  Women out there....sisters, daughters, mothers, grandmothers - tune in!  Do your part.  Make Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton proud! 

In 1848, at the Seneca Falls Convention in New York, Anthony and Stanton began the 70 year struggle to secure the right to vote for women.  Today, 160 years later, headed toward a new Convention, we could put a New York female Senator in the White House as President. 

And think about this for a moment.  There are still nations of the world, specifically within the Middle East, that continue to deny women the right to vote.  Wouldn't it be marvelous to make those sexist world leaders in the Middle East have to deal with a woman leading the most powerful nation in the world?  Putting a woman in the Oval Office would force change that is global.  I don't think there'd be the same impact by putting a man with the name Barack Obama in that position.  Nuff said.

And to that end, I found an interesting article addressing why some feminists are not supporting Clinton for Obama:  democrats_feminists

I really don't think there's enough change by putting yet another man in the White House,  which also restores the idea that the White House needs a prim and proper Jackie-O little wife to keep things status-quo.  It's too damn bad that Michelle Obama isn't running for office instead of her husband.  Now THAT would be interesting.

"I've always seen liberals as people who've taken radical ideas, whether from socialists or communists, finding ways of redefining them, relabeling them, reforming them, compromising them, and then improving the society with them. And the liberal's job generally has been to process and homogenize the more radical notions out there for some time and make them acceptable to the mass society. And to that extent, liberals have played an important part. That liberals innovate anything is questionable. But that they innovate anything worth innovating is doubtful. The innovation comes from more radical sources generally."

This is something that I've been coming across a lot lately in books and documentaries about progressives history: the interdependence between the radical and more moderate wings of a progressive movement. In the women's suffragist movement, for instance, Elizabeth Cady Stanton provided many of the arguments and radical ideas on women's equality that society later adopted, but Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Stone did the dirty work of building coalitions of more moderate and conservative people for the immediate goal of getting women the right to vote. In the book "Izzy: A Biography of I.F. Stone", author Robert C. Cottrell wrote of the New Deal:

"There was a sense of excitement in the air as the New Dealers devised one program after another that at least harked back to the Progressive movement of the early twentieth century and at times beyond that to the Populist and Socialist platforms as well. Long-standing calls by American reformers and radicals for greater government control over business operations, for support of labor unionization, for social welfare measures, for public works projects, for planning, and for a discarding of laissaz-faire approaches appeared to be heeded to some degree or another by the roosevelt Brain Trusters. While it was clear, after a brief spell, that the New Deal was not ushering in a hoped-for revolution of the left or a feared one spearheaded by the right, it was also evident that the influence of progressive intellectuals and activists on government policy was greater than ever."

I think this dialogue between the moderates and radicals is important. It seems to me that an important sign health of this dialogue is how responsive Democratic politicians are to the grassroots.

In the documentary on Ralph Nader, An Unreasonable Man, the DVD has a great special features that has a talk on what is wrong with the Democratic Party. One of the people commented that during the 1980s, Democrats were worried because the Republicans seemed to have an advantage in elections because of their ability to raise money. So Democrats started competing with Republicans for corporate money and Nader and many activist feel that this led to corporations having too much influence within the Democratic Party and that the party has strayed from its earlier egalitarian values.

It seems like Progressives are trying to reassert their voice with in the Democratic Party. In the year 2000, Doris Hadock, a 90 year old activist, walked across America to fight for campaign finance reform, and she ran for the Senate in the year 2004 to fight corporate interests. In the House, Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee have formed a group of congressmen whose goal is to push the Democrats towards being more Progressive. The anti-war movement had a profound influence on the presidential campaign of Howard Dean. Nader stated that one of his goals in his Presidential runs of 2000 and 2004 was to influence the Democratic Party the way Norman Thomas influenced the New Deal in the 1930s.

In these upcoming Democratic primaries, I think it's good that we have all these voices competing to be heard. We have to be sure our candidates forcefully and articulately argue progressive views, and we should really test the 3 frontrunners. Election years are times when politicians listen to the grassroots to get their votes, and this is when we can press them on issues of war and peace, on curbing the bad side of globalization, on issues of poverty.

The author gives a short 300 page history of the movement towards greater freedom in the West, and as you would expect from a Professor of Philosophy, occasionally pauses to give brief cameo explanations of some of the key thinkers whose ideas helped influence the process.

The book begins with the struggle for liberty of conscience in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries against a background of a controlling church and the Inquisition, involving the likes of Torquemada, Servetus, Zwingli and Castellio. This liberty of conscience was followed by the struggle for greater freedom to enquire and the cost paid by people such as Galileo is movingly described.

In time, this drive towards greater independence and individual liberty led to bitter fighting in seventeenth-century Europe, including the Thirty Years' War and the English Civil War. Then, in part arising from the English constitutional settlement of 1688, came the eighteenth-century revolutions in America and France that swept away monarchies in favour of more representative forms of government. These in turn made possible the abolition of slavery, and later, rights for working men and women, universal education, the enfranchisement of women, and the idea of universal human rights and freedoms.

Each of these struggles was a memorable human drama, and Grayling skilfully interweaves the stories of celebrated and little-known heroes alike, including Martin Luther, John Locke, Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Rosa Parks, whose bus protest became the catalyst of the US civil rights movement.

The book reminded me of two, perhaps obvious, points. The first is the power of unintended consequences. Once one is free to believe differently about religion, then one is free to challenge the church's dictats about science and other matters. If you argue passionately that slaves should have freedom, then it is more difficult to be silent about the lack of rights for women and the slave-like conditions of those working in factories. If one of the former colonies (America) has democracy, why shouldn't you extend the franchise in the mother country (UK)?

The second reminder was for the need to take a long-view and appreciate that the movement towards liberty has been, and will be costly. Very often, after breakthroughs, there were major setbacks and many lives were lost. The French Revolution had a bloody aftermath. Those restricting liberty will not give up their philosophy or power and privilege willingly.

I found the book challenging in at least three ways. First, although after reading it I was able to better appreciate the fact that I had been born in my country in the second half of the last century, the book shows there is still much to be done, even in the West. There is still discrimination with regards to race, gender, ability, religion, sexuality and age, even though in many countries this has been officially outlawed.

Secondly, the book challenges us to ensure that we maintain the rights that have been paid for dearly by others. The triumphs and sacrifices of these hard-won victories should make us value these precious rights even more highly, especially in an age when, as Grayling shows, democratic governments under pressure sometimes find it necessary to restrict rights in the name of freedom.

This challenge to maintain our freedom is very clearly seen when facing not just the threat of terrorism, and not just of power and financial interests, but of ideology, especially religion. In a way the book both begins and ends with that. We learn of the historical tortures and murders that happened as the church tried to enforce its world view in the face of those seeking liberty. However, as Grayling reminds us, in the not too distant future, because of higher birth rate and immigration there will be more Muslims in the West than humanists. If the growth of that faith is accompanied by militant fundamentalism, it won't just be the odd novel that is burned or the odd cartoonist who is murdered on the streets. A return to some form of Dark Ages may be likely unless we strive to protect the rights we already have.

Thirdly, the book reminds us that holding and propagating views is one thing, but unless you have influence in the seats of power, change is very difficult. I felt a personal encouragement to go on being active in seeking to influence those who legislate and to making my views known (see also They Work For You).

Book Details: Grayling, A.C., 2007. Towards the Light. London: Bloomsbury.

See also: A Failure to Recant

Laurel points out that, for some women, there is something very seductive about transgressive behavior. That was me, even as a small child. But my predilection is for a more understated subversiveness rather than the excessive, high drama, in your face version. So Madonna’s high visibility transgressiveness is less compelling to me than the simmering iconoclasm of Sinead O’Connor. (When I heard Sinead perform a few weeks ago, it was clear that her fierce “I’ll do it my way, take it or leave it” energy is still very strong.)

Installation by Ana Mendieta

Or the likes of artists like Ana Mendieta and Lee Lozano. Mendieta’s untimely death stopped her extraordinary work in its prime, but Lozano was fierce all the way to the end. She undertook a boycott of the officiously superficial art world by refusing to speak to other women for one month in a conceptual piece that was intended as a way to improve communication with women. It lasted for thirty years.

Untitled, by Lee Lozano

And then of course there is the wonderful quote from poet Alice Notley, originally posted here on October 17th:

I’ve been trying to train myself for 30 or 40 years not to believe anything anyone tells me…To write vital poems, it’s necessary to maintain a state of disobedience against…everything.

“He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.” The declaration also states “He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.”

I was struck several times during my visit to the Women’s Rights Museum, that the rhetoric used then to keep women subordinate in all areas of life is the same used in church today. Women were told then that they had superior moral authority and “natural piety,” which was why they needed to stay at home and rear the children. In other words their moral authority was greatly needed in the “women’s sphere” of home and family. Early suffragists took this argument and turned it around, saying that if women had superior moral authority, this should be used in the public sphere. The moral authority argument for keeping women from participating in the public sphere is the same argument I have heard in church for keeping power and authority from women. “Women are more spiritual, so they don’t need the priesthood” is a justification I’ve heard countless times. Over a hundred and fifty years later, the same arguments are still in play.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered a speech to the House Judiciary Committee in 1892 titled “The Solitude of Self.” In it, she made the argument that woman is ultimately alone in the world and must have the tools, such as a right to education and to own property, to fend for herself. This statement of hers was particularly moving to me:

“The strongest reason for giving woman all the opportunities for higher education, for the full development of her faculties, forces of mind and body; for giving her the most enlarged freedom of thought and action; a complete emancipation from all forms of bondage, of custom, dependence, superstition;from all crippling influence of fear—is the solitude and personal responsibility of her own individual life. The strongest reason why we ask for woman a voice in the government under which she lives; in the religion she is asked to believe; [emphasis mine] equality in social life, where she is the chief factor; a place in the trades and the professions, where she may earn her bread, is because of her birth-right to self-sovereignty; because, as an individual, she must rely on herself.”

Cady Stanton fought for woman’s right to vote, but toward the end of her life became disillusioned with this fight. “For Stanton, women’s liberty depended on their freedom from social and political constraints in every realm of life: the family, the church, and the state. Losing her faith in the power of women’s vote as a vehicle for social change, she began to see women’s lack of political rights as symptomatic of a larger, more disturbing problem: the belief in women’s subordination rooted in the Bible and taught by the Christian church and clergy.” [from Mrs. Stanton’s Bible by Kathi Kern].

Mustn’t we as women -- just as much as men-- follow the counsel of Paul (and later Mormon) to “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling?” [Philip. 2:12, Mormon 9:27]. While we are all part of a grand interconnected web, we are ultimately responsible for our own lives. If we are to give a portion of those lives to a religious institution, should not our voices be heard in that institution? I feel strongly that women’s subordination is not right. I have grown weary of the mental gymnastics and justifications that keep women subordinate and tell us we should think it’s okay. How much better could the church be if the full potential of the talents and gifts of its membership were tapped, rather than only half? How can we as women participate in an empowered way and have our voices be heard? Is it possible? I know these are oft-repeated and worn-out questions, but I still have no satisfactory answers.

According to Martin Kelly at About.com,

The idea for the convention came about at another protest meeting: the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention in London. At that convention, the female delegates were not allowed to participate in the debates. Lucretia Mott wrote in her diary that even though the convention was titled a “World” convention, "that was mere poetical license." She had accompanied her husband to London, but had to sit behind a partition with other ladies such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton. They took a dim view of their treatment, or rather mistreatment, and the idea of a women's convention was born.

Here are some interesting links focusing on the Seneca Falls Convention and the suffrage movement in general:

• Women's Rights, National Historical Park, Seneca Falls, New York (National Park Service)
• The original Declaration of Sentiments, crafted by Stanton and signed during the convention
• One Hundred Years Toward Suffrage: An Overview (1175–1923), from the National American Woman Suffrage Association Collection Home Page, Library of Congress
• An Introduction to the Women’s Suffrage Movement from the Image Gallery of the National Women’s History Project
• A view of today’s women’s rights issues from Human Rights Watch

Of course, AAUW has been an advocate for women’s rights, breaking through barriers by advancing equity for women and girls since 1881. Our own history (visit the AAUW Museum) shows numerous examples of successes. Listen to one of AAUW’s founders, Marion Talbot, as she describes AAUW’s history in a 1945 radio program. And if you aren’t already doing so, use this anniversary to be an advocate for women and girls.

I've got a little surprise for you tonight. Watch for it here and across the Pumasphere* tonight around 8 PM. And I think you are going to LOVE it. I know I do already. UPDATE!! I'm late. They went LIVE with announcement I alluded to earlier. The revised Declaration is going NATIONAL! Be a part! More info here.

Pumasphere is still a cool term though.

All that said, because of my time constraints today, and in preparation for the big announcement tonight, I've decided to cross post the factual twin to yesterday's post. Originally posted at dKos to celebrate Women's History Month in March, this is the story of the birth of the First Wave. What happened in its wake is just as interesting, and I may take the opportunity of these anniversaries to share with you over the next six weeks some of what fills my head. I have all the stories there, cataloged and numbered like a miniature American Women's History library. So, without further ado:

Backstory: The Birth of the First Wave

The 19th Century is widely considered a tumultuous period of political involvement and change. It seems in hindsight as if that drive our forefathers had to couch their rebellion in the concept of equality had everyone wanting a piece of that pie. In addition to abolition movements in the North and South, the concept of women’s equality began to emerge in the 19th century as well.

The idea of Seneca Falls was actually hatched at the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention, held in London. While abolition was, by this time, a world-wide movement, apparently the American movement was a bit more enlightened than the European version, as the convention refused to seat female representatives duly elected in the States. They were consigned to a balcony, and given no opportunity to participate in either discussion or decisions. Two of those women were Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, who met at this convention. Stanton was also on her honeymoon (now THAT’S dedication to a cause). The two women commiserated in the balcony, and vowed that one day women would have a convention to fight for equality themselves. Eight years later, at a tea party at the home of Jane and Richard Hunt, they would renewed their friendship, and take up their vow.

Elizabeth Cady and Harriot Stanton (Yes, the one who gave us our opening quote for the 19th Amendment post.)

Lucretia Mott

July 1848

Though the Seneca Falls Convention on Women’s Rights kicked off the first wave of American feminism, it was nearly an impossible feat. Stanton and Mott only reconnected around July 10th, and they staged the convention at local Wesleyan Chapel little more than a week later, July 19th & 20th. They announced their intentions via the Seneca County Courier on July 16th as a “convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of women.” Because they thought the move was bold enough to warrant attack, they scheduled the first day for women only, inviting men to participate on the second day. However, many men did show up on that first day and they were not turned away, nor did they heckle or try to disrupt. Most were supportive of the effort, and many were among the 100 signers of the document issued by the convention, The Declaration of Sentiments.

Wesleyan Chapel today, on the site of the Women's Rights National Historic Park in Seneca Falls

Declaration of Sentiments

Some of the words had already been written 72 years earlier in the Declaration of Independence. Those words were so powerful and true that they almost begged to be employed to a larger end than designed. The first paragraph differs because the aim is different. Rather than trying to disentangle from a distant tyranny, the signers of the Declaration of Sentiments sought to join a group with others in a show of that equality that was the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. To that most famous of lines, a single word was added—-women.

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And as the Declaration of Independence ends with a long list of wrongs to be righted, so did the Declaration of Sentiments have its resolutions. While all of them are of note in the context of the time, I point to these two as my personal favorites:

Resolved, That woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.

***

Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.

The first was not the reality then, and is not even the reality now, though we have come a long way since 1848. That it's still not true is part of what drives this movement--the continued fight for equality, true equality. The second is the truth and heart of the matter-—it did take women working together, as they had in the Seneca Falls Convention, to a single end, for many women to the exclusion of all else, as well as another 72 years to bring the second resolution to fruition. Women in America today enjoy so many of the freedoms that they do, including the right to vote for any candidate they choose, because of the long fight born at this historic event.

***

Only one woman in attendance at Seneca Falls in 1848, one of the signers of the Declaration of Sentiments, Charlotte Woodward (Pierce), lived to see the 19th Amendment ratified.

*Yes, I did just coin that phrase. Feel free to use it. :)

The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Sentiments are two of the greatest political documents that citizens of this great country have ever produced, aside from our Constitution. They are worth reading again because they reach across the years and speak to us still. They speak to the thoroughly American notion that we, the people, should resist the forces of corruption and unrepresentative control. From our modern perch we can clearly hear the clarion call to our founding ideals: freedom for all people, and fairness for their lives. These ideals have become increasingly absent in our nation, and that fact now threatens the very foundation of the Democratic Party. That is how far we have fallen.

But tomorrow, another small group will release another document in another July. This document will speak to another kind of resistance against another form of corruption and unrepresentative control, this time against the Party that purports to preserve the ideals that Thomas Jefferson and Elizabeth Cady Stanton enshrined in their documents. Like Jefferson and Stanton, we say no deal to the status quo, and demand that our voices be heard and our concerns addressed.

With this document we present our major objections in language that is natural to the American intellect. We present our rational arguments and make our case for what must be done to resolve the issues borne of this campaign season, as well as the issues borne from years of Democratic acquiescence and inaction. We call this document The Declaration of Objections, and we will release it tonight at 12:01, in commemoration of the 4th of July holiday, and in the spirit of July 1848. It will be posted on this blog and on the blogs of anyone who wants a copy and contacts us at peacocksandlilies@gmail.com. Like Martin Luther's 95 theses, it will be posted without additional comment or explanation.

Call to Action

Like The Declaration of Independence and The Declaration of Sentiments, this document was originally authored by one author, and modified by others in agreement. The final document then is one of the community, and not the original author. When this document is posted tonight, it will be available for use without attribution. Claim it as your own, because it belongs to you, and you had a hand in shaping it.

And like the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Sentiments, change doesn't just happen in the presence of text. It's what people do with that text, the life they give it, how it changes them, and the facts on the ground that creates lasting change. So take this document, copy and paste it to as many places online as you can find. Print it out and mail it to your local congressional critters. Mail or e-mail copies to the DNC and the Obama campaign. Somebody, for goodness sakes, please e-mail a copy to Hillary Clinton.

And late Sunday night, after the sun has gone down, take a page from Martin Luther's play book and print it out, take it down to your local Democratic Party Headquarters or your local Obama Campaign Headquarters and TAPE IT TO THEIR DOOR. Make sure it is there for them as a wake up call when they arrive for work on Monday morning. Make your voices heard by getting out and getting involved. It's your movement. How are you going to move it?

The archivists at Rutgers University have begun to digitize and edit the papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who were the foremost advocates of women's suffrage (right to vote) in the United States. This digital collection is a work in progress with a relatively limited selection of documents and texts. But as they work, the project's creators have also provided some insight into the process of documentary editing. Users will likely come away with a great deal of knowledge about how such a collection is chosen, edited, and presented.

The National Park Service page on women’s rights leads the list. Seneca Falls, New York, and the Elizabeth Cady Stanton House are highlighted, focusing on the first women’s rights convention held there in 1848. The saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal,” was written in the Declaration of Sentiments during the convention. That’s appropriate to bring up now, as April is the anniversary of Thomas Jefferson’s birth — the author of a similar but oh-so-different saying.

What would the attendees of that first convention think of women’s rights in the United States today? I have a feeling there would be mixed feelings. On the one hand, we have a presidential election that has a woman candidate, Hillary Clinton. Daily news articles, no matter their viewpoint, agree that the woman voter is powerful, and the ”gender gap” is definitely a hot topic. Speaking of married, I found an interesting study by Betty D. Ray, a master’s student in political science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, recently presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association: "The Gender Gap, the Marriage Gap, and Their Interaction."

On the other hand, I think other issues centering on the rights of women today would cause considerable dismay for the original attendees of the first women’s rights convention. For example, 160 years after the convention, pay equity still has not been realized. Title IX, Social Security, education, and other issues are still of concern. Since I've already talked about "married," let me end with something about "looking." Yes, I'm still looking forward to the day when women's rights have been achieved and human rights are everyone's focus.

The women's movement, like all civil rights movements, was first of all the hope that life could be better for women in America and elsewhere in the world.

(Photo above of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.)

All human rights movements start off as hope and imagination.

It takes a lot of hard work to bring about meaningful change, but it starts off as hope and imagination

Here is what Hillary Clinton, a beneficiary of the woman's movement, said today while campaigning in Providence, Rhode Island.

“Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing,” she said, to a smattering of giggles. “And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.”    

What a lousy thing for Mrs. Clinton to say. 

Why be a liberal if you can't hope something better without being made fun of by someone on your own side of the aisle? 

In real life, most people are probably not aware that Ulrich wrote that line. It first appeared in an obscure scholarly article she published in American Quarterly, the journal of the American Studies Association, in 1976.

Now it is the title of her new book, Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History, published by Knopf. It's a book that focuses on three women who weren't perfectly well-behaved and, so, made history.

One of the three is Virginia Woolf. The other two are 15th century French writer Christine de Pizan and 19th century American suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Ulrich discusses a key work from each: de Pizan's The Book of the City of Ladies, Stanton's 1898 memoir Eighty Years and More, and Woolf's A Room of One's Own.

Ulrich writes about these three authors as women who experienced book-inspired feminist awakenings at very different historical moments, writes Megan Marshall on Slate.

Ulrich is a true history lover and has a special interest in telling women's stories that often remain untold. In an interview with The Harvard Crimson, she described herself an "evangelist for history."

In her new book, she articulates her thoughts about history with these words: "If well-behaved women seldom make history, it is not only because gender norms have constrained the range of female activity but because history hasn't been very good at capturing the lives of those whose contributions have been local and domestic."

In Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History, Ulrich helps capture the stories and the times of three notable women writers of the past. She uses their stories and their work-- and adds context and analysis -- to tell the tale of what she describes as "the renaissance in women's history."

And how lovely that she included Woolf among her trio of notables.

Read more
Read more about Urlich and her book in the Harvard University Gazette. Read the NY Times review. Or read an interview with the author in the Bellingham Herald.