Volume 046-2 - April 1992 (8 pages)

whether he was only using this argument because it was more likely to persuade his doubting colleagues. Later in 1876, he made it clear that all women regardless of social class deserved the pati, Fight to vote. Sargent received much criticism for his radical views on women’s rights and yet he never altered his opinions. He stood up for his beliefs and Tetaliated any criticism. During elections, his opponents always used his support of woman suffrage as a basis for attack. In the midst of his 1871 campaign one California newspaper objected that he was in favor of woman suffrage and ‘‘called for a denial of the truth of the damning charge?’ But a week later, he was delivering one of his most radical speeches in favor of woman suffrage at a suffrage convention in San Francisco stating that, ‘‘They have my views now, and can make the most of them. I would not conceal them to be Senator?’ Reaction From the Community The reaction over the establishing of a woman suffrage association in Nevada County as seen in the newspapers, was two-sided depending on the newspaper. For a fact, the woman suffrage movement in Nevada County did begin in Nevada City (at least the founding members were Nevada City residents — the Sargents, the Leavitts, the Palmers). The Nevada Daily Gazette began printing a series of papers by a female correspondent on June 26, 1865. She was only identified by the A™initials ““M.P!’ In 1869, they began printing editorials on woman suffrage written by a woman identified only as ‘‘L’’ and assumedly another woman who signed an article, ‘Truth and Equity?’ ‘‘L’’ argued in her editorial that ‘*We contend that if female influence is good in private, it must be good in public?’ On the subject of woman’s ‘‘sphere’’ she argued that; .. it will be found that those who engage in this cause are mothers of families rather than childless wives, thus showing it is not a restless desire to go beyond our ‘‘sphere;’ but a full and overpowering sense that our duties are performed; our woman’s sphere but half filled. The article written by ‘‘Truth and Equity’? made several different arguments, most of which were the most popular arguments made at the time. One of her arguments was that ‘‘the presence of women has a restraining influence on man’s coarser nature?’ She also pointed out that; Wherever they (women) are allowed to compete with men, in literature, for instance, they show themselves to be man’s peer in intellectual genius. “Truth and Equity’? also had some racist opinions as was pointed out earlier. The Nevada Transcript supported woman suffrage and reported details from the suffrage meetings. On August 3, 1870, the paper reported the attempt by four or five men to break up the woman suffrage meeting. The Transcript commented that, ‘If their object was to bring discredit upon the woman suffrage movement, their course will have a directly contrary effect?’ Any favorable comment made by a Nevada City newspaper was countered by the Grass Valiey Union. They attacked the movement usually by making fun of the women or men who supported it, but often their attacks were vicious. When a suffrage meeting had to be canceled on account of the weather, The Grass Valley Union decided to make an issue of it. The first thing, women, you must learn is, to defy wind and weather. Men do not hold back for a little bad weather . . . when you go in for suffrage you must expect to shoulder all responsibilities connected therewith. The editorial went on to warn women of all the “hardships’’ they would have to endure upon entering the male domain and the sacrifices which would have to be made in regard to their femininity. Editorials from the Nevada City newspapers were without exception, completely favorable and supportive of the suffrage movement. Even though Grass Valley women were involved in the suffrage movement and had an association chapter there, editors of the Grass Valley Union and the Democratic Daily National of Grass Valley were strongly opposed to the woman suffrage movement. Interestingly, the editors of the Nevada City newspapers were also husbands of members, members themselves, or financial supporters of the Nevada County Suffrage Association. M.S. Deal was editor of the Nevada Daily Transcript, the Rolfes were printers for the Gazette. Grass Valley’s opposition to woman suffrage was not derived entirely from sexism. Woman suffrage was hotly debated between Grass Valley and Nevada City not just over the issue itself, but over other related issues. The political differences between Nevada City and Grass Valley newspaper editors, especially in party affiliation, had a significant effect on the way they viewed woman suffrage. These political differences were intensified by the towns’ rivalry. The rivalry between Nevada City and Grass Valley was political and social in nature. By the 1860’s, Grass Valley had surpassed Nevada City with their quartz boom. The expansion of mining in Grass Valley meant an increase in foreign miners working in the town, especially Cornish immigrants. By the 1860’s, the majority of Grass Valley’s population was foreign-born, coming mainly from Great Britain, Ireland and Germany, whereas more than half of Nevada City’s population was American-born. This ethnic difference divided the towns and a nativist attitude grew among the residents of Nevada City. According to Ralph Mann, it was the nativist, ‘‘political mistrust of foreigners’’ which motivated Nevada City men to support women suffrage. Grass Valley had a high population of Irish-born and the Whig, the Know-Nothing, and Republican parties which dominated Nevada City politics, had always been tied to anti-Irish sentiment and nativism. As was mentioned before, Aaron Sargent was a member of each of these parties at one time or another. And other men who supported the woman suffrage movement were also members of these Nnativist parties. Ralph Mann holds the popular opinion of most historians that the woman suffrage movement was supported by men because they hoped the women would vote them into office and support the nativist movement. This is an acceptable explanation; it is clear that many of the men in Nevada City had nativist agendas. But this theory seems too generalized, especially in Aaron Sargent’s case. In reading his numerous speeches advocating woman suffrage and women’s rights, it is really difficult to detect a hidden agenda. If Sargent did have a hidden agenda behind helping women win the right to vote, he must have been an excellent politician, because his speeches sound truly sincere. Though ridiculed extensively by numerous newspapers throughout California, his support for woman suffrage only intensified and he never tried to “play both sides?’ His speeches remained as radical as any politician’s for the woman’s rights movement. He also was concerned with woman suffrage throughout the nation, not just in Nevada County where he was in competition with Irish-Democrats. Mann’s theory also seems to ignore the motivations behind the women involved in the movement. There can hardly be doubt that the women were really concerned initially with just gaining the right to vote and that it was not nativist sentiments that motivated them. The Nevada County Woman Suffrage Association participated in both the American and the National Associations. Perhaps this tells us that they were not so concerned with the politics behind the movement, but were mainly concerned in securing their own civil rights first; the politics could come later. Conclusion The pioneer women of Nevada County were different than their east coast sisters. They were more independent and definitively more likely to be self-sufficient. The women who fought for the rights to vote in Nevada County were the white, middle to upper class, ‘‘respectable’’? women, but they were also ‘‘pioneer’” women. When Ellen Sargent first arrived in Nevada County, she did not have the same conveniences as she had in Massachusetts, although she admitted that she did not have ‘‘all the privations of the earlier settlers.’ The woman suffrage movement in Nevada County was unusually strong. The fact that the majority of the women who were the most active in the Nevada County Association were married to the most prominent men in the county, is probably more than just coincidence. At a time when women were rarely mentioned in the newspapers, in Nevada City, women were being allowed to write editorials on the suffrage issue. These women had the determination that was necessary for a reform movement such as suffrage, but they also had help from the men (their husbands) in ‘‘high places’? — newspaper men, lawyers, and politicians. Regardless of whether the men had hidden agendas, the Nevada County Woman Suffrage Association was a very important organization which did its part to help win the vote for women in California in 1911, 13

whether he was only using this argument because it was more likely to persuade his doubting colleagues. Later in 1876, he made it clear that all women regardless of social class deserved the pati, Fight to vote. Sargent received much criticism for his radical views on women’s rights and yet he never altered his opinions. He stood up for his beliefs and Tetaliated any criticism. During elections, his opponents always used his support of woman suffrage as a basis for attack. In the midst of his 1871 campaign one California newspaper objected that he was in favor of woman suffrage and ‘‘called for a denial of the truth of the damning charge?’ But a week later, he was delivering one of his most radical speeches in favor of woman suffrage at a suffrage convention in San Francisco stating that, ‘‘They have my views now, and can make the most of them. I would not conceal them to be Senator?’ Reaction From the Community The reaction over the establishing of a woman suffrage association in Nevada County as seen in the newspapers, was two-sided depending on the newspaper. For a fact, the woman suffrage movement in Nevada County did begin in Nevada City (at least the founding members were Nevada City residents — the Sargents, the Leavitts, the Palmers). The Nevada Daily Gazette began printing a series of papers by a female correspondent on June 26, 1865. She was only identified by the A™initials ““M.P!’ In 1869, they began printing editorials on woman suffrage written by a woman identified only as ‘‘L’’ and assumedly another woman who signed an article, ‘Truth and Equity?’ ‘‘L’’ argued in her editorial that ‘*We contend that if female influence is good in private, it must be good in public?’ On the subject of woman’s ‘‘sphere’’ she argued that; ... it will be found that those who engage in this cause are mothers of families rather than childless wives, thus showing it is not a restless desire to go beyond our ‘‘sphere;’ but a full and overpowering sense that our duties are performed; our woman’s sphere but half filled. The article written by ‘‘Truth and Equity’? made several different arguments, most of which were the most popular arguments made at the time. One of her arguments was that ‘‘the presence of women has a restraining influence on man’s coarser nature?’ She also pointed out that; Wherever they (women) are allowed to compete with men, in literature, for instance, they show themselves to be man’s peer in intellectual genius. “Truth and Equity’? also had some racist opinions as was pointed out earlier. The Nevada Transcript supported woman suffrage and reported details from the suffrage meetings. On August 3, 1870, the paper reported the attempt by four or five men to break up the woman suffrage meeting. The Transcript commented that, ‘If their object was to bring discredit upon the woman suffrage movement, their course will have a directly contrary effect?’ Any favorable comment made by a Nevada City newspaper was countered by the Grass Valiey Union. They attacked the movement usually by making fun of the women or men who supported it, but often their attacks were vicious. When a suffrage meeting had to be canceled on account of the weather, The Grass Valley Union decided to make an issue of it. The first thing, women, you must learn is, to defy wind and weather. Men do not hold back for a little bad weather . . . when you go in for suffrage you must expect to shoulder all responsibilities connected therewith. The editorial went on to warn women of all the “hardships’’ they would have to endure upon entering the male domain and the sacrifices which would have to be made in regard to their femininity. Editorials from the Nevada City newspapers were without exception, completely favorable and supportive of the suffrage movement. Even though Grass Valley women were involved in the suffrage movement and had an association chapter there, editors of the Grass Valley Union and the Democratic Daily National of Grass Valley were strongly opposed to the woman suffrage movement. Interestingly, the editors of the Nevada City newspapers were also husbands of members, members themselves, or financial supporters of the Nevada County Suffrage Association. M.S. Deal was editor of the Nevada Daily Transcript, the Rolfes were printers for the Gazette. Grass Valley’s opposition to woman suffrage was not derived entirely from sexism. Woman suffrage was hotly debated between Grass Valley

and Nevada City not just over the issue itself, but over other related issues. The political differences between Nevada City and Grass Valley newspaper editors, especially in party affiliation, had a significant effect on the way they viewed woman suffrage. These political differences were intensified by the towns’ rivalry. The rivalry between Nevada City and Grass Valley was political and social in nature. By the 1860’s, Grass Valley had surpassed Nevada City with their quartz boom. The expansion of mining in Grass Valley meant an increase in foreign miners working in the town, especially Cornish immigrants. By the 1860’s, the majority of Grass Valley’s population was foreign-born, coming mainly from Great Britain, Ireland and Germany, whereas more than half of Nevada City’s population was American-born. This ethnic difference divided the towns and a nativist attitude grew among the residents of Nevada City. According to Ralph Mann, it was the nativist, ‘‘political mistrust of foreigners’’ which motivated Nevada City men to support women suffrage. Grass Valley had a high population of Irish-born and the Whig, the Know-Nothing, and Republican parties which dominated Nevada City politics, had always been tied to anti-Irish sentiment and nativism. As was mentioned before, Aaron Sargent was a member of each of these parties at one time or another. And other men who supported the woman suffrage movement were also members of these Nnativist parties. Ralph Mann holds the popular opinion of most historians that the woman suffrage movement was supported by men because they hoped the women would vote them into office and support the nativist movement. This is an acceptable explanation; it is clear that many of the men in Nevada City had nativist agendas. But this theory seems too generalized, especially in Aaron Sargent’s case. In reading his numerous speeches advocating woman suffrage and women’s rights, it is really difficult to detect a hidden agenda. If Sargent did have a hidden agenda behind helping women win the right to vote, he must have been an excellent politician, because his speeches sound truly sincere. Though ridiculed extensively by numerous newspapers throughout California, his support for woman suffrage only intensified and he never tried to “play both sides?’ His speeches remained as radical as any politician’s for the woman’s rights movement. He also was concerned with woman suffrage throughout the nation, not just in Nevada County where he was in competition with Irish-Democrats. Mann’s theory also seems to ignore the motivations behind the women involved in the movement. There can hardly be doubt that the women were really concerned initially with just gaining the right to vote and that it was not nativist sentiments that motivated them. The Nevada County Woman Suffrage Association participated in both the American and the National Associations. Perhaps this tells us that they were not so concerned with the politics behind the movement, but were mainly concerned in securing their own civil rights first; the politics could come later. Conclusion The pioneer women of Nevada County were different than their east coast sisters. They were more independent and definitively more likely to be self-sufficient. The women who fought for the rights to vote in Nevada County were the white, middle to upper class, ‘‘respectable’’? women, but they were also ‘‘pioneer’” women. When Ellen Sargent first arrived in Nevada County, she did not have the same conveniences as she had in Massachusetts, although she admitted that she did not have ‘‘all the privations of the earlier settlers.’ The woman suffrage movement in Nevada County was unusually strong. The fact that the majority of the women who were the most active in the Nevada County Association were married to the most prominent men in the county, is probably more than just coincidence. At a time when women were rarely mentioned in the newspapers, in Nevada City, women were being allowed to write editorials on the suffrage issue. These women had the determination that was necessary for a reform movement such as suffrage, but they also had help from the men (their husbands) in ‘‘high places’? — newspaper men, lawyers, and politicians. Regardless of whether the men had hidden agendas, the Nevada County Woman Suffrage Association was a very important organization which did its part to help win the vote for women in California in 1911, 13