The Faux Debate in North American Suffrage History

The history of the US women’s suffrage campaign in the twentieth century has often devolved into a debate about whether mainstream politics or militant agitation won the day. This article argues that this division—between those who credit Carrie Chapman Catt and her pragmatic approach and those who trumpet Alice Paul for her campaign of White House protests—is a faux debate. A reading of American history suggests that any political movement for social change—from civil rights to LGBTQ rights—requires a one-two punch. The inside politico engages the powers that be, courting sympathy, while the outside agitator throws rocks at the establishment’s gates, stirring fear about the risks of inaction. The coming centennial of the nineteenth amendment’s ratification offers an opportunity to assess whether this scholarly battle over credit is anything more than a historical distraction, and to lament the missing veins of scholarship lost in its gaze.