In 1909-10, Alva Belmont paid rent for a Harlem branch of her suffrage association, and rented New York’s Hippodrome for a rally to support immigrant striking factory workers. Belmont and other wealthy white suffragists sought sisterhood among women across race and class, arguing that all women needed independence and power. Frustrated with cheating husbands and a lack of financial power, they insisted that class and race privilege did not insulate them from sex discrimination. Belmont stated, “I know that unless this cause means freedom and equal rights to all women of every race, of every creed, rich or poor, its doctrines are worthless, and it must fail in its achievements.” Soon after, however, she explained she was not interested in fighting for racial justice, but equal rights for women (now defined as white). Meanwhile, working class and black women rejected the patronizing control of Belmont and other wealthy suffragists. Like Belmont they saw the vote as a tool to bring about more expansive rights for women, but from their vantage, the heavy-handed tactics of the wealthy undermined their solidarity.
This paper explores how and why wealthy white suffragists envisioned connections with black and immigrant working class women, in a “sisterhood” that could unite them through sex discrimination despite their differences, and why they failed to do so. It shows how black and immigrant women advocated for their rights, and accepted financial assistance even as they insisted on independence. Such cooperation and coalition, pushback and negotiation, elucidate how various women understood the links among financial independence, social status, employment opportunities, and political power. The ideology of the movement becomes more expansive when seen through the viewpoint of these connections. Furthermore, white women’s explicit rejection of the idea of intersectionality sheds light on the long history of this term.
