Women's Right to Vote: The Susan B. Anthony Trial

The battle in the U.S. for the right of women to vote ended long ago, with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

How many of us today have any inkling of the issues and arguments that comprised that struggle? We just accept that of course, the Constitution did not originally give women the right to vote, just as it did not declare that all Blacks were free. It took Constitutional amendments to bring them about.

Allow me to refer you to An Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony as an exceedingly dang interesting rebuttal of such notions. (Just as a pretty dang interesting aside, I had a couple college classes with a young woman whose name I came to learn was Susan B. Anthony. On questioning, she confirmed that the famous SBA was her great-grandmother.)

I will first lay out the facts of the case so all may be clear on the matter. In the fall of 1872 Susan Anthony and a number of other women registered to vote in Rochester, NY, and then did vote in the November election. Anthony and the others were charged with voting illegally, due to their being women and women not having any such right. Additionally, the three election inspectors who allowed these women to cast ballots were charged with breaking the law by allowing them to vote.

Anthony was tried first, the inspectors next. All were found guilty. Charges were dropped against the other women. It was not until 1920, 48 years later, that the 19th Amendment was ratified and the women's suffrage matter was finally closed.

This story is far too much for a single post, so I'll break it into several. For now, let me just say that its' not only pretty dang interesting, it's pretty dang inspiring. Come back soon and read more.

Read Part 2

One Man's Myth Is Another Man's Religion

"Myth" is defined, in part, by the American Heritage Dictionary as "A traditional story presenting supernatural beings . . ." But let's really get down to it. When we're speaking of Roman or Greek mythology what are we really talking about? Their religions. And what defines them now as mythology? Simply the fact that no one believes in these religions any more.

So I'm reading Bulfinch's Mythology: The Age of Fable . Thomas Bulfinch was a 19th Century American writer who felt that many literary references were beyond the general public because many readers were not conversant with the historical subjects they referenced. So he wrote a book intended to be very accessible to the general populace that would help them understand these references when they encountered them. And he seems to have been pretty successful in his intent.

The bulk of the book is devoted to discussions of the Greek and Roman mythologies, that is, religions, and it closes with a discussion of the Norse mythologies, or religions. It's what comes in between that I find pretty dang interesting.

Chapter XXXVII is titled "Eastern Mythology - Zoroaster - Hindu Mythology - Castes - Buddha - The Grand Lama - Prester John." You get the picture. As a good Christian, Bulfinch didn't really care that these religions were still alive--he didn't believe in them so that made them myths.

Now, that's not to dump on Christians. I would have to assume that at some point some Buddhist or Muslim or someone of some other religion has written a book discussing popular myths such as Christianity, Judaism, whatever.

I ran into something very similar to this many years ago when I went in on a job interview. This was pre-internet so all I had to go on was a very short ad printed in the newspaper. There was little way for me to know that the organization where I was going was a conservative Christian organization. But I found out when I got there.

Sitting in the waiting room for about half an hour I had time to peruse their materials. There was a lot about cults. Cults such as those Jim Jones people who commited mass suicide with poisoned Kool-Aid. Cults such as the Mormons. Cults such as Unitarians and Catholics.

Hey, if you have the TRUTH and everyone else is wrong, facts are just facts, right? You bet. But what happens when you and your minister don't quite see eye to eye 100 percent of the way? Is he just a cultist, too? Or are you?

Guerrillas Tested British Resolve in Boer War

Everyone has heard of the Boer War, but how many of us actually know anything about it? I guarantee I knew very little until I started reading The Great Boer War by Arthur Conan Doyle. Yes, that Arthur Conan Doyle, of Sherlock Holmes fame. And that's a story in itself.

It seems that Doyle (Conan Doyle?) was already a well known writer at the time of what was actually the Second Boer War. He wanted to see it for himself and tried to enlist in the army, but the generals were skeptical about having a famous writer in their ranks. Ultimately, he was allowed to join a field hospital operation, and it was his exemplary service in that capacity that earned Sir Arthur Conan Doyle his knighthood. Pretty dang interesting all by itself.

So let me try to abbreviate this pretty drastically. The Orange Free State was an independent country. The Transvaal was an independent country. Natal was a British colony. The Dutch settlers, or Boers, were very conservative religiously and socially, and in the Transvaal they were afraid that the influx of workers from around the world would overwhelm their numbers and wrest political -- and social -- control from the Boers.

Under the leadership of Paul Kruger (as in Krugerrand) the Transvaalers heaped enormous taxes on the newcomers and passed laws making it practically impossible for them to become citizens. Because many of these workers were British, the Brits did not take kindly to what they considered mistreatment and exploitation of their people. They tried to bring international pressure on the Transvaal but to no avail. Meanwhile, the Boers were known to be arming rapidly, in anticipation of some conflict with Britain.

Understand, of course, that this is all as told through Doyle's eyes, a loyal Brit, so there is probably another side to it all.

Anyway, one thing lead to another and the British sent troops to Natal to protect against aggression from the Transvaal. The Transvaalers considered this aggression and struck first, along with troops from the Orange Free State, with which Britain had no quarrel.

Ultimately, it was a matter of the Dutch settlers wanting all of South Africa to be under Dutch hegemony or influence, not British.

Long story short, the British won after three years and incorporated the Transvaal and the Orange Free State into the Republic of South Africa. But what happened during those three years?

The Boers had early successes because they were prepared. The Brits had some catching up to do. Eventually, though, the might of the British empire was more than the Boers could resist. Except that long after the fight appeared a lost cause, Boer commandos and guerrillas continued the fight. And the British public got restive. They started asking why they were continuing to sacrifice their sons and their tax dollars for this never-ending battle.

In the end, it was probably just the low population numbers that allowed the British to force the end of the conflict after only three years. Most of the populations were rounded up into relocation camps and the Boer fighters could ill afford losses of personnel even if they won a battle. Had the fighting continued for the length of time the U.S. was in Vietnam or has been in Iraq, public opinion may have forced a different outcome. But the Boers lacked the manpower to continue fighting, and the war was won before the British public got totally fed up.

As for the book itself, Doyle is obviously a talented writer, so it's very readable. On the other hand, he touches on practically every battle and a great many of the skirmishes in the entire war effort and that gives a bit tiring at times. Nevertheless, it's a very interesting read and I would definitely recommend it.

Even the Indians Had Church/State Conflicts

OK, fourth and final remarks on Canyons of the Colorado, John Wesley Powell's account of his boat trip down the river in 1869, since renamed The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons.

We all know that separation of church and state is an important element in our system of government, and the degree of separation in some countries varies from 0% to nearly 100%. Do you have the idea that this sort of conflict is something born of advanced societies? Guess again. Take a look at what Powell had to say about the tribal politics of the Zuni peoples he encountered.

In addition to the secular government there is always a cult government. In every tribe there are Shamans . . . In many tribes, perhaps in all, the people are organized into Shamanistic societies: but that these societies are invariably recognized is not certain. The Shamans are always found.

The purpose of the Shamanistic institutions is to control the conduct of the members of the tribe in relation to mythic personages, the mysterious beings in which the savage men believe . . . It is deemed of prime importance that such deities should be induced to act in the interest of men. Thus it is that Shamanistic government is held to be of as great importance as tribal government, and the Shamans are the peers of the chiefs . . . but always there is a conflict of authority, and there is a perpetual war between Shamanistic and civil government.

Politics and religion. Apparently you can't live with them and you can't live without them!

Good Eatin' Down in the Canyon

Who knew you could find so much of interest in such an old book. This is my third post about John Wesley Powell's book Canyons of the Colorado, now renamed The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons. This time we're talking culinary arts.

In 1869, Powell and his men floated the Colorado River from Green River, WY, more than 1,000 miles down to the mouth of the Grand Canyon, the first persons ever to do so. Native Americans still largely ruled the area he went through, although there were some settlers at this point.

Powell tells this amusing story of some time they spent with the Indians:

After we have partaken of goat stew and bread, a course of dumplings, melons, and peaches is served, and this finishes the feast. What seem to be dumplings are composed of a kind of hash of bread and meat, tied up in little balls with cornhusks and served boiling hot. They are eaten with much gusto by the party and highly praised.

Some days after we learn how they are made: they are prepared of goat's flesh, bread, and turnips, and kneaded by mastication. As we prefer to masticate our own food, this dainty dish is never again a favorite.

OK. I don't think I need to expand on this.

Recycling History

Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon are Anasazi Indian ruins that today draw large masses of tourists. They are historical and are protected and no one would consider tearing them down.

Such was not always the case. In Canyons of the Colorado, now renamed The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons, John Wesley Powell tells of a ruin they visited as they floated down the river:

. . . here stood an extensive ruin not many years ago. Some portions of the pueblo were three stories high. The structure was one of the best found in this land of ruins.

Now get this:

The Mormon people settling here have used the stones of the old pueblo in building their homes, and no vestiges of the ancient structure remain.

Oh man. Can you imagine? I mean, you can't blame the settlers. Here was a lot of perfectly good building materials ready to be used. But think of Mesa Verde and imagine it being dismantled to build settler homes. What a loss.

John Wesley Powell Describes How Kit Carson Conquered the Navajos

You can't really imagine the courage it took for John Wesley Powell and his men to float the until-then unexplored Colorado River until you read his report of the trip, Canyons of the Colorado, now retitled The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons. They started out with four boats and had two left at the end. Four men gave up the quest before it ended, convinced that death was too likely an outcome.

But the rest did make it through, and their journey is well worth reading about.

Aside from the trip itself, the book contains a number of pretty dang interesting sidelights, and I will discuss them here in a series of posts. This first item has to do with Kit Carson, a celebrated (among the whites) scout, who it seems the natives of the region has good reason to consider in a much less appreciative light.

Powell opens the book by setting the stage, discussing the topography and history of the region traversed by the river. One subject he touches on was the white man's triumph over the original inhabitants of the land, the Navajos.

Powell tells this story:

After the acquisition of this area by the United States they (the Indians) became disaffected by reason of encroaching civilization, and the petty wars between United States troops and Navajos were in the main disastrous to our forces, due in part to the courage, skill, and superior numbers of the Navajos and in part to the character of the country, which is easily defended, as the routes of travel along the canyons present excellent opportunities for defense and ambuscade. But under the leadership and by the advice of Kit Carson these Indians were ultimately conquered. This wily but smart frontiersman recommended a new method of warfare, which was to destroy the herds and flocks of the Navajos: and this course was pursued. Regular troops with volunteers from California and New Mexico went into the Navajo country and shot down their herds of half-wild horses, killed hundreds of thousands of sheep, cut down their peach orchards which were scattered about the springs and little streams, destroyed their irrigating works, and devastated their little patches of corn, squashes, and melons: and entirely neglected the Navajos themselves, who were concealed among the rocks of the canyons. Seeing the destruction wrought upon their means of livelihood, the Navajos at once yielded.

Wow. We all know that the whites basically came in and stole the land from the Indians, and we've read about Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears, but this is another stain that I had never heard of. "OK, you won't let us just take your land away from you? Fine, we'll destroy your civilization. How do you like that?" What in the world made those people think they had any just reason for doing this? Sometimes it makes you ashamed to be an American. Enough said.