http://www.jstor.org/stable/3092402 .
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Organization of American Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of American History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.227.218.196 on Wed, 14 May 2014 13:09:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1058
The Journal of American History
book, to found the Woman'sNationalRepublican Association(wNRA)
in 1888. The WiNRA
was the first women's partisanorganization
that was nationalin scope and recognizedby
the Republicanleadership.By 1910, the year
that Fosterdied, therewereas manyas a thousandlocalwomen'sclubsunderthe wNas aegis. Fosterincludedblackwomen'sclubsin the
wNRA;
her effortscomplementedthe effortsof
blackleaderssuch as MaryChurchTerrellto
get out the vote for the Republicanparty.
ProgressiveEra reformers,most notably
JaneAddams,built on Foster'swork.Drawing
on their experiencein the legislativetrenches,
Addamsand her alliesaddeda powerfulargument to the suffragists'arsenal.Once women
succeededin a givenreformgoal, men in public office invariablytook overthe programsor
institutions women had created. If women
were to breakthis cycle, they neededthe vote
and accessto public office itself.Addamsbecamethe centerpieceof the Progressive
party's
drivein 1912 to attracta femaleconstituency.
All of the main playersin the final act of
the suffragedramawere shapedby the partisan battles of the precedingdecades. Carrie
Chapman Catt told her followersthat "'the
only way to get thingsdone in this countryis
fromthe insideof politicalparties,"'while her
feministcounterpartschose to call themselves
the National Woman'sParty.But it was the
Republicanparty that providedthe majority
of "yes"votes on the AnthonyAmendmentin
1919; the Republicanstook creditfor the suffragevictoryand claimedin their 1920 platform that women were finallywelcomedinto
"full participationin the affairsof government.
Gustafsonshows that Republicansviewed
female voters primarilyas campaignersand
that, despitethe successof pioneeringpoliticianssuch asJeanetteRankinof Montana,resistanceto femaleoffice-holdingprovedresilient within party culture. Gustafsonwould
have tappeda richvein of informationon female politiciansif she had examinedappointmentsto the massivePostOffice Department.
Thousandsof women servedas postmastersin
the late nineteenthcentury,and their stories
would haveenrichedGustafson'sbook.
December 2002
Gustafson astutely asserts that, because
Americansdo not know the historyof the female presencein the world of electoralpolitics,we continueto view "thepoliticalwoman
as an awkward,illegitimate,or misbegotten
phenomenon." Such works as Gustafson's
should serveto counterthe timewornnotion
that the femalepartisanis, by definition,encroachingon male terrain.
ElizabethR. Varon
Wellesley
College
Massachusetts
Wellesley,
White Women's
Rights:The Racial Originsof
Feminism in the United States. By Louise
Michele Newman. (New York:Oxford UniversityPress,1999. x, 261 pp. Cloth, $52.00,
ISBN 0-19-508692-9. Paper,$19.95, ISBN 019-512466-9.)
Louise Michele Newman's White Women's
Rightsis a compellinginvestigationof how racial questionsinformedthe creationof white
feminist thought in the United States. The
foundationof earlywhite women'srightsactivismwas evolutionism,which allowedwhite
women to cast themselvesin the unique role
of "civilizers"of "primitive"peoples. Through
assimilation,Americanization,
and the American imperialistmission,white women sought
to domesticate"primitive"
women in the image of white womanhood,even as they were
rejectingsuch idealsfor themselves.Newman
concludes that the positioning of white
women as superiorcivilizersof others who
were also engagedin a battlewith patriarchy
still hasan impacton women'srightsdiscourse
today.
Newmanbeginsherstudywith the storyof
SusanB. Anthony'srefusalpubliclyto support
FrederickDouglass'smarriageto Helen Pitts,a
white woman. Anthony arguedin 1884 that
she had "butone question,thatof equalitybetween the sexes."In the conclusion to her
book, Newman relatesthat, in the midst of
the 0. J. Simpsontrial,TammyBruce,headof
the Los Angeles National Organizationfor
Women
(NOW),
stated that the association was
not there "to teach our childrenabout race;
what we haveto teachthem about is violence
againstwomen."These two storiesare book-
This content downloaded from 128.227.218.196 on Wed, 14 May 2014 13:09:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Book Reviews
ends to a historyof how raceand gendertensions influenced the development of feminism. Racism,Newman argues,"wasnot just
an unfortunatesideshowin the performances
of feministtheory."
The emphasisof this study is on the years
from 1870 to 1920, but Newman attemptsto
demonstrate deeper roots and legacies of
white women's racializedviews of equality.
She traces the development of feminism
through crucial debates about women in
highereducationand industryand introduces
key figures,both men and women, in those
political and intellectualbattles. Like other
scholarsof white women'srights,she demonstrates that debates about woman suffrage
were about voting, but they were also about
what womanhood meant and, for Newman,
how whites thought about the future of the
white race. Newman focuses on key white
women whose public presencecontributedto
a discourseof racializedtheoriesof genderoppression.So SusanB. Anthony leads eventually to May French-Sheldon,whose 1891 trip
to Africahelped supporta new role for white
women: the "refined white woman" who
servedas a substitutefor "theaggressivewhite
man"in the largerimperialistexercise.
Newman discussesCharlottePerkinsGilman as a crucialtransitionalfigurein feminist
discourse.Likeearlierwhite feminists,Gilman
believedthat "primitive"
people, here specificallyAfricanAmericans,shouldadoptthe very
gender practices that she was rejecting for
white women. Unlike those earlierwhite feminists, however, Gilman optimistically believed that sexual differencesfor whites, like
racedifferencefor blacks,werea "negativevestige" of "primitive"pasts. Gilman'stheories
and life, like those of so many of the women
introducedin this study,were full of contradictions,andNewmandoes an excellentjob of
exploringand explainingthe messiness,and
sometimeseven the logic, of those contradictions. Those readersconcernedwith questions
of women and peacewill find especiallyinteresting Newman's examination of how Gilman'schallengeto sexdifferencescouldcoexist
with her belief in white women'snonviolent
nature.I highlyrecommendthis book. I must
say,however,that OxfordUniversityPresshas
1059
not served its author well. Tiny, tiny print
makesthis a hardbook to read.
MelanieGustafson
University
of Vermont
Burlington,Vermont
Bargainingwith the Statefrom Afar:American
Citizenshipin TreatyPort China,1844-1942.
By Eileen P. Scully. (New York: Columbia
UniversityPress, 2001. xii, 306 pp. Cloth,
$49.50, ISBN 0-231-12108-3. Paper,$19.50,
ISBN0-231-12109-1.)
For decades,polemicistsand scholars(sometimes one and the same) have lambastedthe
principle and practiceof "extraterritoriality"
(extrality,in common parlance)that Western
powersandJapanimposedon Chinathrough
notorious"unequaltreaties."Underthis provision, foreign nationals resident in Chinese
treatyports involvedin legaldisputeswere to
be tried by tribunalsstaffedby diplomatsor
judgesfrom theirown countries.Foreign,not
Chinese,lawapplied.EileenP.Scullyhas reexamined both the theory and the practiceof
extralityand in so doing confoundsnearlyevery assumption-including this reviewer'sabouthow the systemoperated.
Applying both theoreticalanalysisabout
the natureof citizenshipand rigorousresearch
in diplomatic and legal archives,Scully exploresthe fluid natureof the relationshipbetween American "sojourners"
in China and
the UnitedStatesgovernment.Formost of the
century under review, it was not a happy
union. Although extrality effectively exempted U.S. nationalsfrom Chinese law, it
also made them subject to supervision by
Americanofficialsand laws they did not always approveof. Officialsin Washingtonand
diplomatsin China seldomgloatedabout the
special privilegeconferredon their countrymen living in the Middle Kingdom.More often than not, those officialsresentedthe costs,
burdens,and complicationsof looking after
their nationals.For their part, Americansojournersresentedand resistedwhat they perceivedas unwarranted
interferenceby meddlesome diplomats.
Extralitybegan in 1844 and lasted until
1942. Before1906, Scullyexplains,American
This content downloaded from 128.227.218.196 on Wed, 14 May 2014 13:09:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions