Non-Fiction Book Club Bk 2: The Trial of Susan B. Anthony

[MaryinArkansas]

For our second book in the non-fiction book club we’re listening to “The Trial of Susan B. Anthony” by Anonymous. (The first was John Brown by W.E.B. DuBois)

The book's total run time is 8:05:47 (hs). We have a schedule, but you can join in anytime. The schedule is at the bottom of this post.

Your comments on the contents of the book are wanted and will be appreciated*

Even if you can't listen to the book, feel free to add your comments.

Here's a link to "The Trial of Susan B. Anthony" on archive.org:
https://archive.org/details/trial_susan_b_anthony_mk_1407_librivox

Synopsis:

In 1872, after the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, the women’s suffrage movement in the United States adopted a new strategy. Arguing that the right to vote was one of the “privileges and immunities” guaranteed to every citizen by that amendment, the women were inspired to put this interpretation to the test in practice by attempting to register and vote in the November election. In Rochester, NY, fourteen women, including Susan B. Anthony, were successful. Within days after having cast their votes, however, they were arrested, as were the three election inspectors who had received their votes. Suspecting that a Rochester jury might be sympathetic to Miss Anthony, the prosecution requested a change of venue to the nearby city of Canandaigua, where trials were held in June 1873. Intense public interest in the proceedings led the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle to publish this pamphlet in 1874. Here is the transcript of Miss Anthony’s trial, including (in section 9) her justly famous remarks at her sentencing. Here also is the transcript of the election inspectors’ trial, as well as addresses given by Susan B. Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage, and an analysis by John Hooker critical of the trial’s irregularities.

This Book Club listens to one recently released, non-fiction book recording at a time. As the chapters of this book are fairly short, we’ll often be listening to 2 chapters per day. They’re in increments of around 45 to 50 minutes. As happens in life, there will be some flexibility in the schedule. We should be able to complete the book and post comments in 14 days.

Thank You to Maria Kasper for recording this book!

*Please remember that comments should be just in reference to the contents of the book. No mention should be made regarding personal preference to the reader or readers.


Listening schedule: Dates for listening schedule are not written in stone. Good thing, 'cause I'd be in trouble if they were. Some of these section go into a lot of details, so are sometimes hard to analyze...at least for me. (Mary - June 5, 2016)

5/18 Sections 1 & 2: Preface and Examination of Witnesses 33:34
5/19 Sections 3 & 4: Argument for the Defense, Part 1 and Argument for the Defense, Part 2 46:36
5/20 Sections 5 & 6: Argument for the Defense, Part 3 and 4 48:06
5/21 Sections 7 & 8: Instructions to Jury and Motion for New Trial 51:62
5/22 Sections 9, 10 & 11: Sentencing, with Remarks by Defendant, Election Inspectors Trial: Indictment and Election Inspectors Trial: Remarks by Defense Attorney 44:29
5/23 Sections 12 & 13: Election Inspectors Trial – Examination of Witnesses, Part1 and Election Inspectors Trail – Examination of Witnesses, Part 2 46:02
5/24 Sections 14 & 15: Election Inspectors Trial – Argument for Defense and Election Inspectors Trial – Verdict 49:28
5/25 Sections 16 & 17: Address by Susan B. Anthony, Part 1 and 2 47:35
5/26 Sections 18 & 19: Address by Susan B. Anthony, Part 3 and Speech by Matilda Joslyn Gage, Part 1 49:41
5/27 Sections 20 & 21: Speech by Matilda Joslyn Gage, Part 2 and Part 3 48:05
5/28 Section 22: Judge Hunt and the Right of Trial by Jury by John Hooker 20:07

[commonsparrow3]

I'm in!

[Oxenhandler]

Me too!

[MaryinArkansas]

Notes on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony Parts 1 and 2

The first book chosen for this non-fiction book club was "John Brown", by W.E.B. DuBois. It was a fascinating look at some of the pre-civil war history of the country. I knew we could keep the book club rolling on for a long time covering just the American Civil War. However, I wanted the next book to focus on historic incidents other than that war. In an online search I found reference to the June 1872 incident of Susan B. Anthony’s trial for voting. In an election year with a woman running for President, it seemed to be an appropriate choice. Wait a minute - a trial for voting? Well, until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 for the entire country, women in the United States weren’t allowed to vote. Several territories and States allowed voting before that date, starting with then Wyoming Territory in 1869, but women were not allowed to vote nationwide.

As I started reading through the trial transcripts for Ms. Anthony, I realized that the only things I knew about her was that she was a woman suffragette, she tried to vote, was tried and lost her case. It felt a little like I’d started in the middle of a story, not knowing the characters’ motivations, who they were, and what made them the way they were.

So I turned to Wikipedia for a little information on Ms. Anthony, as a sort of "cheat sheet". It was surprising to learn that although her trial was definitely not about the Civil War, there were connections between her life and the life of John Brown…shades of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon!

Susan Anthony’s father was an Abolitionist
One of her brother’s fought with John Brown during the Bleeding Kansas crisis
She was involved with the Underground Railroad and other anti-slavery movements
Like Brown, she was a friend to Frederick Douglass

The first two sections of "The Trial of Susan B. Anthony" are a preface about the trial and the examination of witnesses. Ms. Anthony and thirteen other women voted and were arrested, but "…of the women voters, the case of Miss Anthony alone was brought to trial, a nolle prosequi having been entered upon the other indictments." (Nolle prosequi is a formal notice of abandonment by a plaintiff or prosecutor of all or part of a suit or action.) Does that mean Ms. Anthony offered to be the sacrificial lamb for women’s right to vote, so to speak?

To learn more, stayed tuned for comments from my fellow book club members...

[Oxenhandler]

Those are very interesting connections to John Brown and Frederick Douglas, Mary. Thanks for bringing them to our attention. Wasn't Rochester in the area that at that time was a pandora's box of a great number of religious movements, the Shakers being but one of them. Isn't there a name for this area at this time that alludes to this phenomenon?

EDIT: Yes, found it, Rochester is in The Burned-Over District - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district

My notes on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony, Preface and Chapter 1:

The precipitating events took place in November, 1872, Rochester, NY. Anthony was one of Fourteen women who cast votes for both the NY State Congress in their district and the US Congress for the state of NY. believing they were entitled to vote under the fourteenth amendment. Also indicted and found guilty were the three inspectors who received their votes, Jones, Hall and Marsh. Hall objected but it was a majority decision. He reported the crime. Hall did all that he could to reject the votes but was found guilty with the others nonetheless. Miss. Anthony was found guilty. as were the other women who voted. Anthony held that she did not have a criminal mind and therefore cannot have been guilty of a crime.

Anthony registered to vote and was challenged on the second day of the meeting of the board. Two United States Inspectors were present at the board of registry when her registration was contested. One left the room the other said there was no way to get around placing her name on the register. He did not say she did not have a right to vote. After she was registered, she immediately consulted a Judge Henry R. Seldon as to her right to vote. He advised her that she was not allowed to vote under the New York State Constitution but that she was under the US Constitution, 14th Amendment and that if registration were accepted she could vote. Anthony appeared on the poll list as having voted for the electoral state congress and assembly.

The argument of her defense attorney, the same Judge Seldon she consulted, testified on his client's behalf. He said that if she believed she was entitled to vote she is not guilty of any crime. She voted in good faith sincerely believing she had a right to vote. It is abhorrent that, if she was mistaken she is guilty of a crime. Seldon testified, after consideration of Anthony's question, "Am I allowed to vote?", he advised her unhesitatingly that she is as entitled to vote as any man. Seldon calls Anthony as a witness on her own behalf.

But the prosecutor, Mr. Crawley objected that Anthony was not competent as a witness on her own behalf. We are not told why or how she was not competent. One would think Seldon would have contested this.

Seldon said if they refused to allow her to testify as incompetent they (the prosecution) should not be allowed to offer any evidence she had given previously. But the evidence is allowed to be presented. It is essentially that, Anthony said she had no doubt as to her right to vote and would have voted even if Seldon had not advised her she had the right. She had not "a particle" of doubt that she had a right to vote.

After registering, Anthony came immediately to Seldon's office for advice and Seldon admits he was mistaken as he was not aware she was already registered when she consulted him and he advised her of her right, even if, he concedes, he was mistaken.

A few points that jump out at me: It is noteworthy that the author, Anonymous, writes, paraphrased from memory, "She was a woman, I suppose there can be no argument about that." Which begs the question. She is referred to as "Miss. Anthony" which presupposes she is single, unmarried.

[MaryinArkansas]

But the prosecutor, Mr. Crawley objected that Anthony was not competent as a witness on her own behalf. We are not told why or how she was not competent. One would think Seldon would have contested this.

I wondered about that myself. Did the courts in the 1800's consider any woman totally helpless and incompetent who wasn't represented by a male relative? Or was this blatant prejudice against Ms. Anthony herself?

[commonsparrow3]

Just want to begin by mentioning that I'm a lifelong resident of Rochester NY. So Susan B's story is part of the local lore for me. At some point, most Rochester schoolchildren have been on a field trip to "Aunt Susan's" house, stood in her parlor, and listened to the story of how she was arrested in that very room, complete with the conversation between her and the somewhat embarrassed arresting officer. Later, coming back to the subject as an adult, I wanted more background to put the story in context.

An excellent book on the subject is The Woman Who Dared to Vote by N. E. H. Hull (2012). I read it a couple of years ago and wrote something about it here. Drawing on that source, I'll try to give a brief summary of the events that led up to Anthony's trial.

After the Civil War, one of the new constitutional amendments, the 14th, stated: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." A number of people in the women's suffrage movement looked at these words and said, "Hmm ... Perhaps this means that we no longer need to work for a specific law granting women the vote. If the right to vote is one of the privileges of being a citizen, and women meet the definition of a citizen, then we already have the right to vote under this amendment." So the new strategy was to put this theory to a practical test. In the elections of 1872, women across the country were called on to turn out and attempt to register and vote. If they were turned away, they were to file lawsuits claiming their rights under this amendment, hopefully forcing the courts to validate this reading of the constitution.

In Rochester, as we have seen, a group of women including Miss Anthony succeeded in registering and voting. It's interesting that two of the three election inspectors at their polling place were impressed by their argument and agreed to accept their ballots. Also, that one of the two supervisors called upon for an opinion felt that they had a legal point and that he couldn't stop them. This tells us that their reasoning wasn't totally specious, that it had a certain legal soundness that made sense to listeners.

But not everyone was won over. One inspector objected, but was outnumbered by his two colleagues. One supervisor left the room rather than express an opinion, which leads us to suspect that he disagreed with the other one. And then there was the bystander at the polls on election day who issued the challenge, which led to the women having to go through the formality of taking oaths before being allowed to cast their ballots.

We tend to cast the opinions of people of another era into black and white, ignoring the gray areas. We want to say that "everyone" opposed woman's suffrage back then except for the active minority of brave mavericks who were campaigning for women's rights. But the lead-up to this story reminds us that there were a lot of people in the middle, open to persuasion either way. Some were like these election inspectors. They weren't out there crusading for women to vote, but if you put them on the spot and asked them "Does our argument make sense?", they would honestly have to say, "Yes, I guess it does."

Also interesting to note the provenance of this pamphlet. It wasn't published by one of the crusading women's suffrage newspapers. It was published by a regular general-readership daily newspaper. Evidently the Democrat & Chronicle expected that there was a large enough public interested in the subject to make the publication profitable. And while the actual trial transcript may be considered neutral news reporting, there are subtle indications that the paper was sympathetic to the arrested women, as shown in the tone of the remarks in the preface, and in the fact that the appendices included the texts of two speeches by suffrage supporters, and an essay critical of the trial proceedings.

The fact that the trial was moved from Rochester to the neighboring city of Canandaigua shows that the prosecution was aware that the Rochester jury pool might include men who were open to sympathize with the defense argument. And, as we shall see later in the progress of the trial, the judge may have suspected at least some similar feelings among the Canandaigua jurors.

Sorry I haven't actually got around to commenting on the text of the audiobook yet! Just wanted to fill in some background info. Now off to supper, but I'll try to get back with a few comments on the text of the trial before the night is over.

[MaryinArkansas]

Great information, Maria. Many thanks for posting this!

[commonsparrow3]

Some comments on the Preface:

Whoever the anonymous staff reporter was who wrote the Preface to this pamphlet, I like his style. There is slyness and humor in some of his turns of phrase, such as: "The defendant Hall is at a loss to know how he could have avoided the penalty, inasmuch as he did all that he could in the way of rejecting the votes, without throttling his co-inspectors".

I sense the writer's sympathies lean towards the defendants. Though not directly stated, it seems implied in this sentence: "To enable the friends of the convicted parties to understand precisely the degree of criminality which attaches to them in consequence of these convictions, the following pamphlet has been prepared." In other words, it seems to be saying, "Friends of the defendants, read this and you will understand that though your friends have been convicted, they are not really criminals."

I have no real comments on the Indictment, which is a flood of legalese, other than to note that the charges specifically mention the votes for Congress, though the women also voted for other offices. However, the particular law they are being charged under is a law regulating Congressional elections, so that's the part of the action fixed upon for the Indictment.

Comments on the Examination of Witnesses:

I was amused by the almost silly technicality involved in the D.A.'s line, "At that time she was a woman. I suppose there will be no question about that." And later, the defense acknowledges: "Conceded, that on the 5th day of November, 1872, Miss Susan B. Anthony was a woman." This makes me laugh, but I also realize that it was a way to clear the ground of a bothersome technicality in order to get on with more important matters.

I was interested in the part of the witness examination which described the voting procedures at that time.

Q. Will you state to the jury what tickets she voted, whether State, Assembly, Congress and Electoral? ...
A. If I recollect right she voted the Electoral ticket, Congressional ticket, State ticket, and Assembly ticket ....
Q. Did you receive the tickets from Miss Anthony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do with them when you received them?
A. Put them in the separate boxes where they belonged.
Q. State to the jury whether you had separate boxes for the several tickets voted in that election district?
A. Yes, sir; we had.

Nowadays, we are usually given a single ballot containing all the offices for which we are to vote, so this part of the evidence confused me when I originally read it, and I had to look up information on voting procedures in 1872. There would have been separate ballots ("tickets") for each office, such as presidential electors, congressional candidates, state assembly candidates, and local county and municipal offices. There were several ballot boxes, and the ballot for each office had to go into the correct box. The inspectors could testify as to which offices you voted for, because you would have taken those ballots and put them into the designated boxes. It all sounds a bit confusing to us, but apparantly it was quite normal and easily understood at the time of this witness's remarks.

Henry Selden was Miss Anthony's personal family lawyer, also a local judge, and her defense council in this trial. It seems that after she had already suceeded in registering to vote, she then consulted him for a legal opinion before election day. He seems to have believed that she had consulted him before registering, and was as surprised as anyone to discover during the trial testimony that in fact she had only consulted him as a mere afterthought. I can see him somewhat red-faced as he had to correct his own courtroom testimony here, "Um, my client now informs me that she had actually made up her own mind to vote long before she ever asked my opinion." Whoops!

But the basic testimony he gave remained forceful: "Miss Anthony called upon me for advice upon the question whether, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, she had a right to vote. I had not examined the question. I told her I would examine it and give her my opinion upon the question of her legal right. She went away and came again after I had made the examination. I advised her that she was as lawful a voter as I am, or as any other man is, and advised her to go and offer her vote." Selden was a highly respected lawyer and judge, and here he is laying this influential message on the minds of the jury - basically telling them "I who had no previous bias one way or the other on this question, when I took the time to look into it, was totally convinced that Miss Anthony was right". This had to have carried some weight in the minds of any jurors who were themselves open-minded to consider the issue.

On the question of whether or not the defendant was to testify:

Judge Selden: I propose to call Miss Anthony as to the fact of her voting—on the question of the intention or belief under which she voted.
Mr. Crowley: She is not competent as a witness in her own behalf.
The Court so held.

"The Court so held" basically tells me that the trial judge, Ward Hunt, accepted the prosecution's "not competent" statement and upheld it, without allowing any further discussion on the point. Mr Crowley was never asked to produce any argument as to why the witness was not competent, so we can't know what argument he might have offered.

It's interesting, though, that at earlier preliminary hearings, held at the time the charges were originally filed, Miss Anthony was allowed to testify, and that testimony was now quoted here at this trial. There was nothing really harmful to her case in that earlier testimony, but her defense lawyer Selden probably objected to admitting it as a way of pointing up a certain hypocrisy - in effect saying "Well, if you're not going to let her talk here and now, aren't you being inconsistent to make use of an earlier hearing when you did let her talk?"

Sorry, I didn't realize how long this post was growing until now! I'll try to keep tomorrow's comments more concise!

[Oxenhandler]

My notes on Sections 3 and 4, Parts 1 and 2 of the Argument for the Defense:

Suffice it to say, Selden presents an articulate defense, but I can't help but notice that in so doing he is arguing against men's responsibility to protect women and thereby using law to nullify that which is his natural responsibility and the foundation of male female relations for millennium everywhere up until very, very recently. Is it that in exchange for the vote and other concessions women lost that entitlement? Was it a net gain? These are questions I don't usually think about so I have no answers.

Please forgive the rough form of these notes as they have not been edited but were written during listening. The text in quotes is not necessarily correctly transcribed.

The accused has been indicted for the crime: if any person shall knowingly vote without having a lawful right to vote, that person shall be deemed guilty of a crime, punishable by a fine of $500, and/or three years in prison and/or court costs.

Anthony's crime consists in her being a woman and not a man. Woman have the same interests in good government as men. Upon principals of equal justice, women should have an equal voice in the question. Courts are not so required to enforce absurd or unjust laws. This case presents three questions,

1. Was she entitled to vote?
2. If not, but in good faith believed she was entitled, is she guilty of a crime?
3. Did she vote in good faith?

The purely legal question is number one. Miss. Anthony claims that every citizen has a right to take part in the formation and administration of government. She believes that women have not been treated fairly. Laws are made by the consent of the governed. As government is a contrivance instituted for the security of individuals, each "man" should have a share in its concerns. There should be no imagined superior amongst the governed. Broader suffrage means a governed less likely to revolt. Short of this the name free government is a misnomer. Two classes denounce the extension of the franchise from men to include women. Women are inferior in physical and mental power. The protection of the weak by the strong is an argument in favor of extending suffrage to women by men. Indirect protection is not more protective than their protection by their own suffrage would be.

The story of two women, one slandered and one whose child was taken by her husband.

The rights and property of women became her husband's upon marriage prior to 1848. No right to custody of her children prior to 1860.

We learn that the accused is one who has worked to reform these conditions over the past twenty-five years.

Men are colloquially the guardians of women. The wrongs were less in the men and more in the laws that sustained them.

Chinese women, Hindu women, Jewish women, Turkish, Persian, English women are all used as examples of the principal of women subject to laws passed by men for their benefit. As if done in the best interest of all except the women who are subjected to the superior strength, ignorance and selfishness of men in all nations.

Since nations have come to be governed by laws and not strength, injustice can be extinguished and all can share in the political powers of the state. Persons to whom such powers are denied are slaves hence emancipated slaves have been given the right to vote.

The character of women would be changed, they would be "un-sexed" by the clothing them with political rights. "And that instead of modest amiable and graceful beings that we should have bold, noisy and disgusting political demigods or something worse if anything can be imagined."

Women's modesty, delicacy and intuitive sense of propriety will never desert them without change of character as women. Nature has put barriers in the way of women. Women should be left to depend on success upon their character and their abilities.

The Georgia case regarding the feudal ideas distinguishing the prince from his subject. The people are the sovereigns of the country but they are sovereigns without subjects except themselves. But the judge in that case forgot that women are the subjects of those sovereigns. The elective franchise cannot be denied to women. Women need it. And both men and women will be better protected by it.

The constitution of the United States bares directly upon the question. Article 1, Section 2 and 3. Article 2, Section 1. Article 4, Section 2 and 4. Thirteenth Amendment, 1, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in any state.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, "All persons, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction there of are Citizens of the United States and of the State where in they reside, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

Fifteenth Amendment, Section 1, "The right of citizens of the US to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the US or any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

The states were left to define what constitutes a citizen in their state.

What are the privileges of the citizens of the United States that can not be abridged by a state? A person deprived of his personal rights is essentially a slave. Taxation without representation is tyranny, a fragment of the principal, as government can be oppressive other than by taxation. That was the principal of the American revolution.

The principal if not the sole object of the section was to secure the personal rights of life, liberty and equal protection of the laws.

If a clause in the NY state constitution abridges the privileges and immunities of the citizens it should be omitted.

[MaryinArkansas]

Notes on Sections 3 and 4 - Argument for the Defense Parts 1 and 2

This portion of the books covers the first two sections of the arguments of Henry R. Selden on behalf of Miss Anthony. Mr. Selden pointed out that she was charged with the crime of voting only because of her sex: "The crime therefore consists not in the act done, but in the simple fact that the person doing it was a woman and not a man. I believe this is the first instance in which a woman has been arraigned in a criminal court, merely on account of her sex." Sounds like a little sarcasm mixed with a sense of humor to me

In our modern times of sound bites and 8 second attention spans, I realized that this case must have meant nearly as much to Miss Anthony’s attorney as it meant to her. Mr. Selden’s arguments in these two sections alone cover about 45 minutes of reading time (taking away the extra LibriVox material Maria was required to record.) Lacking today's technology speed and numerous reference resources readily available, Mr. Selden (and whatever assistants he employed or volunteers who might have lent a hand) had to spend a great deal of time, effort and money on research for this trial. Whatever the outcome would be, I think the time and care Mr. Selden took with this case showed how much it meant to him.

In these sections Mr. Selden goes into some detail on women's rights – often lack thereof – during that period and previous times. The law stated any personal property that had belonged to an unmarried woman became the "absolute property" of her husband upon their marriage. Also, any child born from the marriage belonged to the husband. This meant that in the event of a separation or divorce, the woman had no rights to what had previously been her property. And she had no say so or rights regarding the care or custody of her children. These are probably two of the main reasons why divorce was rare at that time.

Citing improvements in laws for women, Mr. Selden reported on "the good news": "In most of these respects the state of the law has undergone great changes within the last 25 years. The property, real and personal, which a woman possesses before marriage, and such as may be given to her during coverture, remains her own, and is free from the control of her husband.

"If a married woman is slandered she can prosecute in her own name the slanderer, and recover to her own use damages for the injury.

"The mother now has an equal claim with the father to the custody of their minor children, and in case of controversy on the subject, courts may award the custody to either in their discretion.

"The husband cannot now by will effectually appoint a guardian for his infant children without the consent of the mother, if living."

However, there was still "the bad news":

"They are still subject to taxation upon their property, without any voice as to the levying or destination of the tax; and are still subject to laws made by men, which subject them to fine and imprisonment for the same acts which men do with honor and reward—and when brought to trial no woman is allowed a place on the bench or in the jury box, or a voice in her behalf at the bar. They are bound to suffer the penalty of such laws, made and administered solely by men, and to be silent under the infliction."

And, what else? Oh yeah… as of 1873, women still can’t vote. But be patient, ladies – 1920 is only 47 years away!

[Oxenhandler]

Perhaps it will come up, but upon reading your comments Mary, it occurred to me, there so far has been an no mention by the defense of Miss. Anthony's status as a single, unmarried woman. At that time I believe, she would have been described as a "spinster". Ostensibly, her single state affected her personal rights. She did not have a husband whose vote she could influence.

[MaryinArkansas]

Perhaps it will come up, but upon reading your comments Mary, it occurred to me, there so far has been an no mention by the defense of Miss. Anthony's status as a single, unmarried woman. At that time I believe, she would have been described as a "spinster". Ostensibly, her single state affected her personal rights. She did not have a husband whose vote she could influence.

I suppose by always referring to her as "Miss Anthony" her status as a single woman must have been established. Maybe she's referred to as "a single woman" further on in the trial.

It is possible that a woman could influence her husband's vote, but I doubt that men would openly admit such a thing. Once women got the vote a lot of them probably voted as their husbands did. My grandmothers always voted the same as my grandfathers. My parents usually voted for the same person, but occasionally canceled out each other's vote.

I like the comments that the three of us are making on this book. I think we'll all finish with an A+

[commonsparrow3]

About Miss Anthony's position as an unmarried woman:

Remaining unmarried might actually have been more legally beneficial for a woman at that time than marriage. A married woman was known in law as a "femme couvert", a "covered woman", meaning that her legal status was covered by her husband. A married couple were considered legally as if they were one person, and that person was the husband. So a married woman was unable to bring a lawsuit in her own name, to own property in her own name, or to make contracts in her own name. But an unmarried woman was legally a "femme sole", a "solo woman". She could own her own property, make her own contracts, bring her own lawsuits, and generally had her own legal identity, at least in those areas. But of course there were areas that had been declared off-limits to any women, married or unmarried. Voting was one of those areas, the one Miss Anthony was on trial for.

About Henry Selden's Argument for the Defense:

To convince the jury that voting is one of the privileges of citizenship referred to in the 14th Amendment, Selden sets out to demonstrate that whenever voting rights are denied to any group or class of people, those disenfranchised have suffered from laws passed in which they had no voice. No other privilege of citizenship can safely exist unless the right to vote gives security to those other rights. "Without a share in the political powers of the state, no class of citizens has any security for its rights, and the history of nations to which I briefly alluded, shows that women constitute no exception to the universality of this rule." He gives examples of how women have suffered from ridiculous and harmful laws in the past, with particular examples. Even when men believe that they know how to best look after women's interests for them, the results have often proved disastrous. He also reminds his hearers that positive changes have been brought about in these areas within their own lifetime. He discusses the gradual expansion of voting rights, first to include propertyless men, then to include the former slaves, and he mentions the recent changes in laws which cover married women's property and other similar matters. By these means, he suggests to his listeners that they belong to a generation more enlightened than those of the past, and that they are presumably ready to admit the truth of this argument, "that all government over persons deprived of any voice in such government, is tyranny. That is the principle of the Declaration of Independence. We were slow in allowing its application to the African race, and have been still slower in allowing its application to women, but it has been done by the fourteenth amendment, by a definition of "citizenship," which includes women as well as men, and in the declaration that "the privileges and immunities of citizens shall not be abridged." If there is any privilege of the citizen which is paramount to all others, it is the right of suffrage."

Certainly Selden believed that his client was correct in her belief that the 14th Amendment supported her right to vote. He spends a lot of time arguing that line of reasoning. But he was a defense lawyer, and as such he regarded his primary duty as winning an acquittal for his client. This is why he also introduces a second line of argument as a backup plan, and it is a line that his client must have frowned at. Argument A - "My client is entitled to vote under the 14th Amendment" - okay, yes, this is the point she wants to prove. But Argument B - "Well, maybe my client isn't entitled to vote, but simply made an honest mistake" - this undercuts everything she is trying to prove! She would much rather stick to proving her point, rather than win an acquittal on some lame legal excuse. But you can't blame a defense lawyer for thinking "I'm supposed to get my client acquitted by whatever legal tactic works, that's my job." (Still, I have a mental image of Susan kicking her lawyer under the table every time he goes off on Argument B!)

[Oxenhandler]

Certainly Selden believed that his client was correct in her belief that the 14th Amendment supported her right to vote. He spends a lot of time arguing that line of reasoning. But he was a defense lawyer, and as such he regarded his primary duty as winning an acquittal for his client. This is why he also introduces a second line of argument as a backup plan, and it is a line that his client must have frowned at. Argument A - "My client is entitled to vote under the 14th Amendment" - okay, yes, this is the point she wants to prove. But Argument B - "Well, maybe my client isn't entitled to vote, but simply made an honest mistake" - this undercuts everything she is trying to prove! She would much rather stick to proving her point, rather than win an acquittal on some lame legal excuse. But you can't blame a defense lawyer for thinking "I'm supposed to get my client acquitted by whatever legal tactic works, that's my job." (Still, I have a mental image of Susan kicking her lawyer under the table every time to goes off on Argument B!)

Good legal analysis here, Maria. You make sense out of what is otherwise confusing if not contradictory.