To the OP:
Question: Where do you get these original idea’s?
Salaam. A
Which just proves my hypothesis:
Women rock!
Woo.
Julie
jsgoddess
For obvious reasons I completely agree.
Salaam. A
First of all, women started voting in the 1850’s and 1860’s, mostly in school elections, local elections, state elections, city elections, etc.
Wyoming gave women complete voting rights of all of its elections in 1869.
By the time the 19th ammendment was passed, women already had full voting rights in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Washington, California, Kansas, Oregon, Arizona, Michigan, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
What most people always seem to forgt, is that men themselves did not have the right to vote either until 1789.
In the larger scheme of things, it was an extremely very short period of time that “only white men” had the right to vote, from 1789 to the 1850’s.
Esp if you consider that in the early years, 1789-the 1830’s , most white men could not even vote unless they had so much property or land that they owned.
By the time most white men finally got the vote themselves, 1840’s or so, they immediately started giving the right to vote to women and minorities.
Thanks for the post, Susanann - whew! For a moment there I was concerned that women had been relegated to a lesser role historically, but you’ve enlightened me as to the reality of the situation.
In the museum in which I work is a christening gown made by Dolly Madison for the daughter of a local politician. That baby grew up to be the first woman who ever voted in my town. She was 96 years old when she cast her first vote in a local election.
And Wyoming has remained a hotbed of liberalism and progressivism ever since, as personified by Dick Cheney. 
Susann is correct about a bunch of things, but I’d disagree that “By the time most white men finally got the vote themselves, 1840’s or so, they immediately started giving the right to vote to women and minorities.”
The states (and territories) where women first gained suffrage were frontier areas where traditional gender roles broke down (and there were also fewer women). Look at the states you list - they’re all out West. In the East, which I would guess was a good deal more populous, it took longer, and suffrage wasn’t nationalized until 50 years after it started in Wyoming.
Likewise, while black men legally got the vote in the 1860s, we all know what really happened there: they were prevented both by laws (grandfather clauses, literacy tests, etc.) and by threats and violence from voting in many places to the point where historic and prominent laws were being passed on the subject in the 1960s.
I am speechless.
But, since they were over 30 and single, it calls into question their motive. Since we all know they were weirdos.
All your other points were good. I just have a small nit with that one. It took a little longer.
Did **Grim I ** leave us?
Susanann: please help me understand where you’re coming from - do you really think women are on par with men when it comes to wages, stature in politics, etc.?
Quasimodem!! Help!!
Rant alert; the younger states did not give women the right to vote because they were more open-minded or recognized women as real, thinking people.
Territories could apply for statehood ONLY when they had a sufficient number of voters. So they granted suffrage to all sorts of riff-raff.
Like women.
Grin.
Off to Google a cite
I can’t believe I just NOW noticed this was the OP’s very first post.
j66 - you’ve got this one, girlfriend…have fun! 
I wasn’t trying to say it was a reflection of open-mindedness and sensitivity. 
BUT: while I don’t know the exact years each territory did what, that explanation doesn’t quite work for all of those states. Michigan became a state in 1837, way before women got the vote. California joined the union in 1850. Kansas was in in 1861, and Oregon was 1859. The other states listed didn’t join until later on, although I can’t say for sure that women got the vote before or after the territories became states.
Not saying you’re wrong, but that doesn’t appear to be a catch-all summary.
All generalizations are wrong …
Can YOU find a treatise on the subject? I’m a lousy googler.
Well, I hate to burst your bubble. But many of the early suffragettes were blatantly racist, and a few of the early women’s activists – white women’s activists – were members of the Klan or Klan-affiliated groups. This sort of fact tends to get written out of our modern potted histories of the women’s movement. It surfaces from time to time when feminists want to name a campus building for some suffragette and the minorities on campus start pointing out the racist writings the feminists would rather not have you know about.
One of the major arguments suffragettes made for giving women the vote was that the added numbers of white women voting would outnumber the non-white vote. After white women gained the vote, tactics such as literacy tests and poll taxes were used to effectively disenfranchise non-whites. Since women now made up the majority of voters, it obviously was not without their support.
After women – or more accurately, white women – gained the vote, Congress passed two of the most restrictive measures ever against immigration by people who were non-white or not Northern European.
One of the most hateful and false things modern feminists have done is try to paint bigotry as a male trait, with feminists standing side by side with the “other” oppressed. In fact, feminists have always partnered with whoever could best serve the interests of feminists at the time. That has included people who were as blatantly racists or bigoted as the feminists themselves.
The hell I wouldn’t rather know, and have every one else know, too.
BTW, cite?
I am truly interested.
I can’t cite anything specific, j66, but I remember that the converse of what Andy says is also true: many abolitionists were reluctant to pair up with suffragettes because they felt it would hurt their cause.
And Andy, I’m with j66. Please don’t overgeneralize about the subject. I call myself a feminist and I don’t support hiding that sort of thing either. Honesty is the core value.
I will have to do some digging. It might take a day or two.
BTW, it vexes me that when men do do the right thing, ways are found to belittle it or attribute a sinister motive to it. So with saying men in the Territories gave women the vote in order to gain statehood. To me, it means they were ready to move beyond the old system, and giving women the vote was part of it. Considering the feminist blood-libel that all men want to do is maintain control over women, it seems odd that these men were willing to make themselves de-facto minorities within an electoral system.
Well, there’s more of the stuff I was just talking about. Come on, Andy, this stuff is just insulting. I’ve never heard any feminist really say anything of the sort. I know extremists say all kinds of goofy things, and I think Eve Ensler makes an ass of herself sometimes (although I’m not aware of her saying anything like what you say), but that’s not representative of a group at large. I’m obviously not going to say any of that stuff because I’m a guy, but come on, where’s the love? I think most of the people here are too smart to fall into big generalizations like this.
I know you’re talking about feminism here, but this is done with any action in history. People and countries don’t always do the right thing because it’s the right thing. They act in self-interest. I’m not even trying to say ‘everybody is selfish,’ it’s just one of those things about history.
Honesty certainly has not been a core value of feminism. Misleading domestic-violence statistics, misleading sexual-assault statistics, the Super Bowl hoax, the “anorexia Holocaust” hoax, the “rule of thumb” hoax, the willfully blind eye turned to female and lesbian domestic violence, the credo that “all men a potential rapists,” false and misleading statistics on the “glass ceiling” and different wages, efforts to smear fathers and liken fathers’ custody to criminal behavior, plus the entire philosophy of claiming to opposed discrimination while advocating active, anti-male discrimination – it is just not a record of honesty.
In “The Feminine Mystique,” Betty Friedan launched a movement by comparing the role of housewife to the role of Nazi concentration-camp inmate. She also called on “manipulators” (her word) to start touting the feminist movement. Manipulation is inherently dishonest – and the belief that feminists should begin by manipulating people has set the tone for a movement that has repeatedly, institutionally shown a disregard for truth.
Moreover, it is hardy a “generalization” to note the bigotry and racism in feminism. There has never been a time that the movement has been without bigotry. Numerous early suffragettes were openly racist, in keeping with a wide swath of white America. Moving into the modern era, man-bashing and anti-male stereotypes – and anti-male policies – became commonplace.
I give you Susan Brownmiller, who helped launch the exaggeration of rape with her book “Against Our Will.”
[quote Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men.[/quote]
Or Robin Morgan, former editor of Ms. Magazine. Under her direction, and with the help of Gloria Steinem, the magazine help fuel the hysteria over “satanic cults” and day-care sex rings – cases that sent innocent people to prison, destroyed lives, and turned out to be falsely based on coercion and yes, manipulation of child witnesses.
Ms. Morgan freely engages in women good/men bad philosophy, depicting males as the death force and women as the life-giving force of love. From her “The Demon Lover” (NY: Norton & Co., 1989:
More of Ms. Morgan:
My bolding added.
Or try Marilyn French, in “The Women’s Room”
It is a shame that with widespread hatred so well documented in major, mainstream feminists, we still are faced with the argument that it was only a few fringe extremists who thought this way. Then again, the most powerful ally that hatred has is denial.