The Transcontinental Railroad, completed in 1869, changed the face of America. It offered better economic circumstances, faster travel, and to some it seemed, unlimited opportunity. Many people were responsible for its eventual success, but one of its biggest supporters and believers in its potential was a young engineer named Theodore Judah. Unlike many of his contemporaries, however, Judah wasn’t in it for the money. In many ways, he dedicated his life to the railroad.   Growing up With the Railroad Theodore Judah Elementary School is the oldest continuously operated school in Sacramento and is on the National Register of Historic Places. Source: JinCA / Wikimedia Commons   Theodore Dehone Judah was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, in 1826. At the time of his birth, only about three miles of railroad track were functioning in the United States. Judah and the railroad industry matured together and became increasingly intertwined as the young man grew. Judah studied civil engineering and, by the age of 18, was a railroad surveyor for the New Haven, Hartford, & Springfield Line. At 21, he married a young woman named Anna Pierce, who supported her husband’s dreams as the pair traveled throughout the northeast for Judah’s work.   The rail industry was growing rapidly, and by this time, quality engineers were in high demand. In 1854, Judah was hired to become an engineer in California. He acquired the job on the recommendation of the governor of New York, who was asked to suggest a qualified engineer who might be up for the task of building the first railroad in the West. California was teeming with gold money at the time, and investors were looking to turn the western frontier into a respectable business environment. A railroad connecting business interests in the west and east could help meet this goal, and Judah was the one to make it happen.   Moving West: A New Obsession An undated portrait of Judah. Source: Donner Summit Historical Society   Theodore and Anna traveled to California from the east coast to accept his new job. There were two modes of travel available to make this trip—traveling in a covered wagon, as thousands did during this era, or steamship travel, which is how the Judahs made the journey. This required sailing south through the Caribbean, crossing the Isthmus of Panama, a narrow strip of land connecting the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, and then boarding another ship to sail up the Central American coast to California. Traveling down around Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America was another option, but it added significant time. The downside of the Panamanian route was the land crossing, which took three to four days on foot, horseback, or on mules.   Pack mules were one option for travel across the Isthmus of Panama. Source: University of British Columbia Library / Wikimedia Commons   The Judahs arrived in Sacramento, California, in May of 1854. At the time, Sacramento echoed many other “wild west” towns. Despite its status as California’s capital, it was a town filled with saloons, gambling houses, and brothels. Theodore Judah went right to work in this new, rough environment and, over the next two years, played a key role in creating the Sacramento Valley Line, the first railroad west of the Missouri River. By this time, Judah’s enthusiasm for his craft had earned him the nickname “Crazy Judah,” but despite the odd nickname, Judah was a well-respected member of the industry. His work in California had ignited a spark in Theodore, and though he wasn’t the only one thinking about a transcontinental railroad and its potential for America, it occupied his thoughts frequently. He spent most of his free time thinking about such a project and the route it might take.   Mapping a Route Judah needed to decide which route was the best, taking into account feasibility, finances, and safety. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   While the idea of a transcontinental railroad was one that many people supported, it wasn’t something that could magically happen overnight. There were several challenges. One of the most significant ones was how to conquer certain landforms in the way, especially mountain ranges. In 1859, Judah was nominated by the California Pacific Railroad Convention to travel to Washington to lobby for funding for a transcontinental railroad. After spending time getting many congressmen thinking about the potential for such a project, Judah realized that more detailed planning was required before this project could succeed. Heading back to the drawing board, he focused more intently on finding a feasible route.   Finding a path through the Sierra Nevada Mountains was a significant challenge for the transcontinental railroad. Source: Jared Ray Coleman via Wikimedia Commons   Determining the best way through, around, or over the Sierra Nevada mountain range was a major concern for the surveyor. In July 1860, he received a letter from a man named Daniel “Doc” Strong, a storekeeper from Dutch Flat, California. Strong was also interested in seeing the transcontinental railroad come to fruition and invited Judah to visit Donner Pass, suggesting that it might be a suitable place for the future railroad to crest the Sierra Nevadas. Judah accepted and, upon surveying it himself, found that the pass had a gradual, continuous rise and fall that made it perfectly suitable for locomotives to travel over. Strong and Judah joined forces and eventually became the driving force behind the founding of the Central Pacific Railroad Company.   Finding Investors Leland Stanford, the first Republican governor of California, was one of the “Big Four” who invested in Judah’s ideas. Source: Cantor Arts Center at Stanford University / Wikimedia Commons   Now that he had a route, Judah required financing. He and Strong managed to drum up about 46,000 dollars from private investors in the gold fields but were still in need of cash to put the project into motion. They considered selling subscriptions, which would bring in smaller amounts and require many sales. However, Judah met with Collis P. Huntington, a ruthless California businessman, who offered to come up with the remaining funds and bring in only three other investors, tossing aside the need to sell dozens of subscriptions.   Huntington, along with Leland Stanford, Mark Hopkins, and Charles Crocker, would become known as “The Big Four” or the “Associates.” They financed the founding of the Central Pacific Railroad Company. Judah was named Secretary of the Railroad Committees in both the House and Senate, allowing him direct access to further lobby for federal support for the project. The Railroad Act of 1862 checked all the boxes, securing additional federal funding for the project. The Transcontinental Railroad project was underway.   Trouble in Paradise An 1867 gold bond from the Central Pacific Railroad Company. Source: Julie Ceccaldi / Wikimedia Commons   Judah soon discovered that he had very different goals than other members of the Central Pacific. The Big Four were in the project solely to make money and soon began scheming to maximize their profits, sometimes at the expense of the railroad. For example, the Big Four wanted to fudge measurements regarding where slopes began since the company would be paid more per mile of mountain construction as opposed to building on flat land. Judah disagreed, and the Big Four went over his head and hired another surveyor.   Judah grew increasingly frustrated at his lack of control over the proceedings and the amount of influence that the Big Four held over the project. He explored his options and decided that buying the businessmen out of their stakes in the Central Pacific Railroad Company was the best course of action. Unable to do so himself, he would need to look elsewhere for support. He headed back east, hoping to meet with Cornelius Vanderbilt and similar wealthy counterparts.   Premature Passing Judah would not live to see his dreams of a Transcontinental Railroad come to life. Source: Yale University Libraries / Wikimedia Commons   Judah set sail for New York in October of 1863, determined to save his dream. However, he became gravely ill while making the crossing in Panama. He became progressively sicker as the second half of the trip continued and was diagnosed with Yellow Fever. Upon reaching New York, he took refuge in the Metropolitan Hotel in New York City with Anna, but he was too sick to commence the meetings for which he made the trip. Theodore Judah passed away as a result of his bout of Yellow Fever one week after reaching New York. He was buried in Greenfield, Massachusetts.   Replicas of Central Pacific (left) and Union Pacific locomotives at the Golden Spike National Historic Site in Utah. Source: James St. John / Wikimedia Commons   Judah did not live to see the completion of the railroad he had worked so hard to build. Construction concluded when crews from the Central Pacific Railroad Company met those from the Union Pacific Company in Utah in May of 1869, where a golden spike was driven to mark its completion. Leland Stanford of the Big Four was on hand to drive the celebratory nail.   While Judah may not have been able to see his vision completed, it is doubtless that his personal investments of labor and dedication, the ones that earned him his “crazy” nickname, were critical to its success.

  It comes as little surprise that of the “Four Thomases” during King Henry VIII’s reign (Cranmer, Cromwell, More, and Wolsey), Thomas More was not spared the wrath of his king. Only one of the Thomases would outlive the tyrant king—and it would not be More. Thomas More’s life and work were not without controversy, as this article will explain, and working under Henry VIII meant that he was walking a tightrope at all times. Read on to find out why he was such an influential, yet controversial, figure.   Thomas More’s Early Life Sir Thomas More, by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1527. Source: Google Arts & Culture   Thomas More was born on February 7, 1478 on Milk Street in London, England. He was the son of a lawyer (Sir John More) and his wife, Agnes. He was the second child of the six that the couple had together.   Young Thomas was educated at St Anthony’s School, which at the time was regarded as one of London’s finest schools—and this excellent education undoubtedly helped to transform the boy into the man that he would become.   As an adolescent, More worked as a household page for the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Morton. It was John Morton who had a huge impact on More’s later humanist beliefs—part of what at the time was called the “New Learning” system—Morton encouraged the young More in these studies and put him forward for a place at Oxford University.   In 1492, More began his studies at Oxford University, where he received a classical education, becoming proficient in both Greek and Latin. Upon his father’s insistence, More left Oxford after just two years in order to pursue a career in the law, like his father. By 1496, More had become a student at Lincoln’s Inn, and he remained there until 1502 when he was formally called to the Bar.   Thomas More’s Entry Into Politics Sir John More, by Hans Holbein the Younger, c. 1527. Source: The Royal Collection   More’s political career started in London, shortly after he had qualified as a lawyer. In 1504, he was elected to represent Great Yarmouth, and by 1510 he was representing London in Parliament.   More’s first foray into politics was a memorable one. In 1504, he dared to oppose the frugal King Henry VII’s demands for money. The young, upstart lawyer-turned-politician opposed the king of England in front of Parliament. While More’s tactic and argument worked on those present in Parliament—Henry only demanded a figure akin to three-fifteenths of the original amount he had asked for—and he never forgave the young More’s audacity. While he could do nothing to More himself, he retorted by throwing his father in the Tower of London and only released him when the More family had paid a sum of £100.   After this incident, More disappeared from the public eye for a few years. Yet he was not out of the spotlight for long. By 1510, he was working as one of the two undersheriffs in London, and four years later became the Master of Requests, slowly making his way into the Royal Court. In mid-1514, he became a Privy Counselor and was firmly established within the royal circle.   He undertook a diplomatic mission to visit Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and in 1520, he took a trip to the Field of the Cloth of Gold, where he accompanied Thomas Wolsey (the Chancellor) and King Henry VIII at the huge display of machismo and royalty.   The following year, in 1521, More was knighted for his services to the Crown. As for a further reward, he was made under-treasurer of the Exchequer.   More’s Beginnings Under King Henry VIII Henry VIII, by Hans Holbein the Younger, c. 1537. Source: Wikimedia Commons   As a key member of King Henry VIII’s court, More (now Sir Thomas More following his knighthood) began to really work hard, establishing himself as one of the most important diplomats at the Tudor court.   He involved himself deeply in foreign affairs, inviting foreign diplomats to the Tudor court, while also serving as a liaison between the king and Wolsey, whose relationship was becoming more fractured as the 1520s progressed.   However, More had the advantage that both Henry VIII and Wolsey respected him greatly—the latter even nominating More to become the Speaker of the House in 1525, a role which More gladly accepted. His political prowess was growing stronger every day, and it appeared that he was certainly on an upward trajectory that would seemingly never come down.   More’s Pinnacle of Power Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, c. 1585-96. Source: Artuk.org   In 1529, Henry VIII removed Wolsey from his position, as he deemed that the Chancellor had become too powerful (he was sometimes referred to as the “alter rex”—meaning “other king”). Wolsey had also failed to negotiate an annulment with the Catholic Church for Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.   There was only one logical replacement for Cardinal Wolsey in Henry’s eyes: Sir Thomas More. And so it was that in 1529, More became the new Chancellor of England.   However, the upward trajectory that More had been on since the early 1520s was about to come crashing down—and not for dissimilar reasons to Wolsey.   It is important to remember that during this turbulent period in history, the notion of Protestantism was new—men on the continent like John Calvin and Martin Luther were recent phenomena, and the only branch of Christianity prominent at the time in England was Roman Catholicism.   Henry VIII had different ideas, though. He needed a divorce, and he needed it quickly. Of course, this led to the infamous Reformation Parliament, in which More himself was to be a leading figure.   More and the Reformation Parliament Thomas Cromwell, by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1532-33. Source: The Frick Collection   In order to see his divorce finalized and make sure that the break from Rome formally went ahead, Henry VIII declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England.   Of course, More had a pivotal role in what came to be known as the Reformation Parliament, and he was not shy about withholding his own beliefs. In a move that harked back to his spat with Henry VII around the turn of the 16th century, More stood his ground and dared to oppose the mighty King Henry VIII.   More supported the notion of the Pope holding supremacy over Henry, believing that the Pope was God’s representative on Earth, and a successor of the disciple, Peter; Henry was merely a mortal monarch.   In 1530, More refused to sign a letter—which had been drafted by leading figures in the English Church—that asked for Pope Clement VII to annul Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The same year, a royal decree was issued, ordering all churchmen and members of the clergy to swear an oath that would acknowledge the king as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. It was known as the Oath of Supremacy.   While most members of the clergy signed it (this was known as the final submission of the clergy), More and a few others refused. Most of the clergymen who refused to sign it were relieved of their positions by Henry VIII, while More had to be dealt with more carefully thanks to his power and influence over the Tudor court.   By May 1532, More had seen enough. On May 16, he resigned from his position as Chancellor but managed to remain in Henry’s favor—largely because he kept his main opinions private, and did not make a public show of them.   More’s Charges and Indictment Portrait of Anne Boleyn at Hever Castle, artist unknown, c. 1550. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Naturally, More was not the kind of man to disappear without some sort of controversy. Following the annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon, news had spread that the king was due to wed a woman from the court, Anne Boleyn.   More himself was invited to attend the wedding ceremony, but upon receiving his invitation in 1533, the former chancellor refused. This enraged Henry, and More was charged with heresy and accepting bribes. The reality was that More’s refusal was seen as a snub against the king and the Royal Family, so Henry needed to find a legal reason to have him charged.   In 1534, around the turn of the year, More was accused by Thomas Cromwell (Henry VIII’s chief minister at the time) of giving advice to a nun called Elizabeth Barton, who had been telling a prophecy that Henry’s life would soon end for divorcing Catherine of Aragon. However, these charges against More were soon dropped.   Later in the same year, More was once again put on trial, this time to appear before a committee and swear his allegiance to the Act of Succession—which outlined that Henry and Anne’s daughter, the future Queen Elizabeth I, would be Henry’s heir presumptive if he did not have a son, rather than his daughter with Catherine, who would also go on to become Queen Mary I. Once again, More refused.   His time was up at the Tudor court. After refusing to support Henry’s supremacy over the Church of England, refusing to support his annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and refusing to sign the 1534 Oath of Succession which acknowledged Anne as queen and their children as heirs, the only option left was to arrest him on charges of treason.   More’s Final Days and Execution The Meeting of Sir Thomas More with his Daughter After His Sentence of Death, by William Frederick Yeames, 1872. Source: Wikimedia Commons   More was arrested on charges of treason, and Henry VIII had him imprisoned in the Tower of London. While in the tower, he often wrote to his daughter, Meg, while another one of the most common visitors to his cell was Thomas Cromwell, who actively encouraged More to sign the Oath and rebuke his previous beliefs.   If More was anything, he was a man of principle. And he stood by his beliefs, all throughout his tenure in the Tower, and even right up to his death.   His trial date was set for July 1, 1535, and on the judging panel were figures including Anne Boleyn’s father, uncle, and brother. Unsurprisingly, the jury only took 15 minutes to find More guilty of high treason, and while he was initially set to be hanged, drawn, and quartered (which was the punishment usually reserved for commoners, rather than members of the nobility), Henry changed these charges so that he was to be executed by beheading.   On July 6, 1535, at Tower Hill in London, More was beheaded, aged just 57 years old.   The Legacy of Sir Thomas More An illustration of Utopia, artist unknown, 1516. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Sir Thomas More was undoubtedly one of the most prominent figures in Tudor England—and he became a symbol of martyrdom for the Catholic cause. His loss was huge for the Tudor court—a figure who could orate and debate as well as More was not easy to replace. But Henry moved on and so did England, into an era of quasi-Protestantism.   Aside from his skills as chancellor, More was arguably an even better philosopher and he is credited with some of the most important philosophical works in history.   His 1516 work, Utopia, is one of the most widely-read and controversial works of Tudor literature, while other contemporary European philosophers such as Erasmus regarded More as one of the greatest minds of the age.   The legacy that More left behind was not just one of a Catholic martyr, nor just one of a great philosopher, but a legacy of a mind so in touch with the Tudor court, and so politically intelligent, that his passing left a gap that few English statesmen were able to fill.

  When Tomáš Masaryk, Edvard Beneš, and Milan Rastislav Štefánik came together to create the independent state of Czechoslovakia in 1918, they proved to be some of the most successful nationalist leaders of the 20th century. The creation of Czechoslovakia (1918-1992) was the culmination of the rise of nationalist movements in the 19th century and the fall of old multinational empires after World War I.   Czechs and Slovaks in the Habsburg Empire Map of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI. Source: Te Ara – The Encyclopedia of New Zealand   From 1804 to 1918, the Austrian Empire under the Habsburg monarchy ruled over much of Central Europe. The empire was home to a number of different nationalities ruled by a central government in Vienna that sought to either repress or accommodate ethnic minorities. Two large communities within the empire were the Czechs and Slovaks. While these Slavic peoples once lived in the independent states of Bohemia and Moravia during the Medieval period, by the 19th century they had been ruled by Germans and Hungarians for several centuries.   In 1910, there were 2.1 million Slovaks living in the empire. They lived in territories controlled by the Hungarians such as Upper Hungary and the Carpathian mountains. Slovaks had resisted pressure from the Hungarians to undergo Magyarization and forget their Slavic identity. They lived away from urban centers and sought to stick together. Despite heavy immigration to the Americas, most Slovaks remained in the country, hoping to gain autonomy or independence from the governments in Vienna and Budapest.   At that time, there were 6.7 million Czechs in the Austrian Empire. Most of them were located in the crownlands of Bohemia and Moravia. They shared their lands with a German-speaking elite which attempted to Germanize the region. Prague was the center of these ethnic tensions and Austrian elections saw major political disputes between Czech and German parties over the status of these regions. While the Germans claimed that the Czechs were just brickmakers and cooks, they played an increasingly important role in business, industry, and politics. They were considered some of the most advanced people in the Austrian Empire. In the years before the First World War, Czech and Slovak national movements were constantly demanding independence or autonomy at the very least.   The Troika of Czechoslovak Nationalist Leaders Tomáš Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia. Source: Library of Congress   The first of three prominent Czechoslovak nationalists in the early 20th century was the lawyer and journalist Tomáš Masaryk. A man with both Czech and Slovak ancestry, Masaryk had been a representative of the Young Czech Party and the Czech Progressive Party in the Austrian Reichsrat. He was regarded as an unorthodox and colorful individual who defended a Jewish man falsely accused of murder. He opposed the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, making him enemies throughout the empire. When WWI began in 1914, he went into exile.   Edvard Beneš was a Bohemian born in the 1880s who spent his formative years studying in France and Prague. He came from a poor family that lived a typical existence in the Bohemian countryside. He was a strong supporter of Slavic causes in the Austrian Empire and publicly promoted the cause of Czechs and Slovaks. When Masaryk went into exile, Beneš kept in touch with him as part of an organization called “Maffia”. He subsequently left the country to advocate for the Czechoslovak cause.   The last of the three Czechoslovak founders was Milan Rastislav Štefánik. A Slovak from a small village, he studied construction engineering in Prague and started training to become an astronomer. He was briefly a student of Masaryk and became convinced that Czechs and Slovaks should be united as one people. His need to travel frequently as an astronomer to make observations meant that he became a French citizen right before WWI. All three figures had grand ambitions of a nation uniting Czechs and Slovaks and they desired to work together to make that happen.   Czechs and Slovaks in WWI Czech sailors in the Austro-Hungarian Navy in WWI. Source: Czech Radio Archives   When Emperor Franz Joseph I ordered the empire to mobilize to fight the Entente powers at the start of World War I, Czechs and Slovaks found themselves subject to conscription. Some willingly joined, believing that the empire was justified in going to war. Many others were reluctant, especially when they were sent to fight their fellow Slavs in Russia and Serbia. Some one million Czechs and Slovaks found themselves fighting on all sides of the war.   While Vienna portrayed the war as vital for the survival of the empire, many Czechs and Slovaks saw the war effort as impeding their national dreams of statehood. The Entente posed no threat to the traditional Slovak and Czech homelands and the costs of the war heavily impacted communities throughout the empire. War taxes reduced the income of Czech and Slovak families while conscription tore families apart. This in turn led to desertion and mutinies.   During the war, exiled Czechs and Slovaks vowed to assist the Entente in return for support of their national ambitions. Štefánik joined the French Army as a pilot and urged other Slovak exiles to do the same. Every major Allied power lobbied Czechs and Slovaks to desert the Austrian ranks. These efforts had an effect; part of the reason the Austrian army collapsed at the end of the war was due to ethnic tensions within the ranks. They were assisted by Beneš’s organization “Maffia” which aimed to overthrow the empire. Additionally, armed forces of Czech and Slovak exiles began to coalesce to defeat the Central Powers.   The Czechoslovak Legion Soldiers of the Czechoslovak Legion, via Emerging Europe   Throughout much of the war, the Czechoslovak National Council argued for the creation of an armed force of Czechs and Slovaks that could fight for their homeland. Negotiations were time-consuming because the Entente was not convinced that the Habsburg Empire ought to be dissolved after the end of the war. After much deliberation and debate, Allied commanders actively began recruiting Czechs and Slovaks into their respective armies. In 1916, the French created several regiments of Czech and Slovak dissidents. In Italy, autonomous Czech and Slovak units arrived on the battlefield in 1918.   While the Western Allies were sympathetic, the Russians were the most willing to promote Czechoslovak nationalism. As soon as the war started, units composed of Czech and Slovak prisoners of war were formed to fight with the Russian Third Army. They gained a reputation as some of the most effective formations in the Russian army, even when the Russian army began to break apart during the revolutions of 1917. By the time Russia exited the war by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in 1918, there were 40,000 Czechs and Slovaks in this unit, known as the Czechoslovak Legion.   As the Russian empire crumbled and the new Russian government collapsed, the Legion insisted on the right of passage to their homeland. When the Bolsheviks rose to power, they signed the Penza Agreement, allowing the Czech Legion to take trains to Siberia and evacuate. However, the Legion became trapped during the Russian Civil War and ended up having to fight the Bolsheviks alongside Admiral Alexander Kolchak’s White Army. They only returned to Czechoslovakia in 1920 at the end of the conflict.   The Declaration of Independence, 1918 Crowds demonstrate for independence in St Wenceslas Square in Prague, 1918. Source: Czech Radio Archives   As the First World War was coming to an end in 1918, Vienna’s empire began to experience internal chaos. Heavy casualties and repeated defeats led to serious disorder and encouraged support for separatism. Masaryk, Beneš, and Štefánik saw opportunity where the Austrians saw disorder. The Czechoslovak National Council increased its lobbying efforts and saw hope in Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which supported self-determination for people in Europe. Despite some efforts by Slovaks to form their own state, many others believed that their fate was linked with the Czechs.   In 1918, Czech and Slovak representatives met in Pittsburgh in the United States and signed an agreement announcing their intention to create an independent state. This was followed by the Washington Declaration on October 18, 1918. This statement, which had the blessing of the Western Powers, was the formal declaration of independence of Czechoslovakia by the Council. However, the actual day of independence would come on October 28, when the Czechoslovaks received permission from Vienna to form their state.   Upon the declaration being read aloud in St. Wenceslas Square in Prague, the local population reacted with jubilation. Dr Isidor Zahradník, a future government minister, gave a speech to thunderous applause stating “We are breaking our chains forever in which the faithless, foreign, immoral Habsburgs have tormented us. We are free!” German signs were torn down, people brought out new flags of Czechoslovakia, and Austrian officials and troops immediately evacuated from the newly independent country. This day marked a new era in the history of Central Europe, precipitating the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire with the effective abdication of Emperor Karl I on November 11, 1918.   Building State Institutions Edvard Beneš, the first Czech foreign minister and second Czech president, 1918. Source: Czech Radio Archives   Declaring independence was easy enough; developing a state proved more challenging. The new state faced challenges from its neighbors on its borders, the economy was weak after years of war, and the threat of Communism was real. When negotiators from around the world met at the Conference of Versailles, Czechoslovak representatives attended to gain recognition for their borders, which was granted at the Treaty of St Germain. There were serious fears about Hungarian revanchism, Polish expansionism, and Pan-Germanism.   The new republic was supposed to consist of five main territories: Bohemia, Moravia, Czech Silesia, Slovakia, and Carpathian Ruthenia. The new Czechoslovak armed forces battled a Hungarian attempt to conquer parts of Slovakia. Additionally, pan-Germanic political factions tried to get Bohemia to secede and join a united German-Austrian state. The police and army crushed this separatist attempt. Lastly, the new Polish state sought control over parts of Silesia. The Czechoslovaks prevailed in these fights and consolidated their national sovereignty.   Milan Rastislav Štefánik, the first Czech minister of war, 1918. Source: Wikimedia Commons   While the new state fought for sovereignty, a new government was formed. Czechoslovakia was a multiparty democracy in the interwar period in accordance with the wishes of its founding leaders. Both Czech and Slovak were designated as official languages. Major social investment stimulated the economy and gave people confidence in the state. Equal rights and suffrage were granted to all. Masaryk became president, Beneš became foreign minister, and Štefánik war minister. The first election in 1920 saw 22 parties compete in the National Assembly. This set the tone for the country’s future and resulted in 20 years of political stability until 1938, when Nazi Germany annexed the Sudetenland.   Following six years of German occupation during World War II, Czechoslovakia regained its independence and prewar president Edvard Beneš returned to office. After Beneš’ death in 1948, Czechoslovakia became a communist country and remained so until the Velvet Revolution of 1989. The Czechs and Slovaks separated in 1992 on amicable terms in the so-called “velvet divorce.”

  Pedro I was born a Portuguese prince, but he defied his family and his homeland to lead Brazil to independence, becoming the new empire’s first emperor. Pedro I’s reign, however, was plagued by military defeat and internal unrest. In 1831 Pedro I abdicated as emperor of Brazil to return to Portugal and lead the liberal cause to victory in Portugal’s Civil War. Pedro I died shortly thereafter in 1834. Today, he enjoys a positive legacy in both Brazil and Portugal.   Pedro I: Early Life in Portugal and Flight to Brazil Portrait of John VI of Portugal and Carlota Joaquina of Spain, by Manuel Dias de Oliveira, 1810-1820. Source: Museu Histórico Nacional via Google Arts & Culture   Pedro I was born in 1798 to the future King John VI of Portugal and his wife Carlota Joaquina of Spain. At the time of his birth, Pedro I was known as Dom Pedro, using the Portuguese honorific “dom” meaning “Lord.” In 1801, following the death of his older brother, Dom Pedro became his father’s heir and thus second in line to the Portuguese throne.   Embarkation of the Royal Family to Brazil, by Nicolas-Louis-Albert Delerive, 19th century. Source: National Coach Museum, Lisbon, Portugal   In 1807, the young prince’s life in Portugal was thrown into turmoil when Napoleon’s forces invaded. Dom Pedro’s father, serving as the Prince Regent of Portugal, made the bold decision to evacuate the government and royal family to Portugal’s colony, Brazil. The young Dom Pedro, and nearly 10,000 members of the Portuguese elite, including government officials, nobles, and military officers, sailed to Rio de Janeiro under the protection of a British fleet.   Dom Pedro could not have known it at the time, but it would be 25 years before he once again set foot in his homeland.   The Portuguese Royal Family in Brazil A map of Rio de Janeiro in 1820 when it served as the capital of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, by Jacques Arago, 1820. Source: Brazilian National Archives   The arrival of the Portuguese royal family and government in Brazil transformed the colony overnight. Brazil enjoyed a major economic boom because of the influx of thousands of educated and wealthy Portuguese combined with the repeal of restrictions on trade and commerce.   Dom Pedro and the rest of the Portuguese royal family were generally very popular amongst Brazilians, who appreciated the positive influence the presence of the royal family was having on the colony’s development. The feeling was reciprocated by Dom Pedro and his father, the Prince Regent, who fully embraced life in Brazil.   In fact, to the growing consternation of his government, and despite the fact that Napoleon had been defeated at Waterloo in 1815, the Prince Regent made no effort to return to Portugal.   Pedro I: Brazil’s Prince Regent Pedro I, Emperor of Brazil by Henri Grevedon, 1830. Source: Brasiliana Iconográfica   In December 1816, Pedro I’s father became King John VI but still refused to leave Rio de Janeiro, resulting in a unique situation where a European country was ruled by a monarch living in South America. Meanwhile, Portugal was in chaos after enduring years of French occupation and the absence of an effective government.   Matters came to a head in August 1820 when the Liberal Revolution broke out in Portugal. The revolutionaries summoned a Cortes, a legislative assembly, to draft a new constitution. The Cortes demanded the return of King John VI to Portugal. When Portuguese soldiers stationed in Rio de Janeiro revolted and proclaimed their loyalty to the Cortes, it was clear the king had to return to Portugal or risk being deposed. On April 25, 1821, King John VI reluctantly boarded a ship for Lisbon.   King John VI declared his popular son and heir, Dom Pedro, as his regent in Brazil. Allegedly, before leaving for Lisbon, the king advised Dom Pedro that Brazilian independence was inevitable and that when the moment came, he should seize the crown of Brazil.   Pedro I and Brazil Declare Independence The proclamation of the independence of Brazil, by François-René Moreaux, 1844. Source: Imperial Museum of Brazil   The Cortes was determined to restore Portugal to the stature it enjoyed prior to the Napoleonic Wars. To accomplish this objective, the Cortes believed it was necessary to restore Portugal’s domination over Brazil. The Cortes further stated its intention to restore Portugal’s monopoly over trade with Brazil and demanded Dom Pedro’s return to Portugal.   Brazilians reacted with outrage and urged Dom Pedro to refuse the Cortes’ demands. Dom Pedro agreed and informed the Cortes that he would not leave Brazil. In response, the Cortes stripped Dom Pedro of his powers as regent and demanded his immediate return to Portugal.   Dom Pedro was informed of the Cortes’ order on September 7, 1822, while travelling along the banks of the Ipiranga brook. He sensed that the moment his father had warned him about had finally come. In an event that became known as the Cry of Ipiranga, Dom Pedro proclaimed Brazil’s independence from Portugal and declared that from that day forward, the only choice for Brazil was independence or death.   Dom Pedro Becomes Emperor Pedro I The coronation of Emperor Pedro I of Brazil in 1822, by Jean-Baptiste Debret, 1822. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Pedro I’s ascension as emperor was not universally accepted. Portugal viewed Pedro I’s declaration of Brazil’s independence as a rebellion. However, after years of fighting Napoleon, it was in no position to send significant reinforcements to Brazil. Moreover, King John VI of Portugal was not enthusiastic about fighting his son or Brazil, a country he loved and regretted being compelled to leave.   By 1824 Pedro I’s forces, aided by British mercenaries such as Lord Thomas Cochrane, were able to compel the remaining Portuguese garrisons in Brazil to surrender. The 1825 Treaty of Rio de Janeiro between Portugal and Brazil ended the Brazilian War of Independence. Pursuant to the terms of the treaty Portugal recognized Brazil’s independence and Pedro I’s title as Emperor of Brazil.   Pedro I’s Troubled Reign Oath of His Majesty Emperor Pedro I to the Constitution of the Empire, 1824. Source: Brazilian National Archives   Although Pedro I emerged victorious from the Brazilian War of Independence, his reign as emperor was troubled. From the moment it began, Pedro I faced growing divisions over the form of government the new country should adopt.   The constitution of the Empire of Brazil gave significant powers to an elected legislative assembly and regional governments. The emperor had the power to select his ministers and veto legislation.   Pedro I was not an absolutist, and the constitution of the Empire of Brazil was one of the most liberal constitutions in the world at the time. However, many liberals continued to believe that the constitution gave the emperor far too much power.   D. Maria II, Queen of Portugal, circa 1837, by John Simpson. Source: Museu Imperial, Brazil via Google Arts & Culture   Pedro I was also accused, justifiably, by his opponents of not having renounced his interest in the affairs of Portugal. The emperor’s ongoing entanglement with Portugal became starkly apparent when King John VI of Portugal died on March 10, 1826. On his father’s death, Pedro I became both the emperor of Brazil and King Pedro IV of Portugal. The crowns of Portugal and Brazil were therefore reunited less than a year after the signing of the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro.   Pedro I recognized that he could not possibly retain both crowns and within two months had abdicated as king of Portugal in favor of his daughter, Maria, who became Queen Maria II. Nevertheless, Pedro I continued to interfere in Portuguese affairs by giving advice to Maria II and issuing orders to officials in Portugal.   While Pedro I always remained loyal to Brazil, his obvious involvement in Portuguese affairs enabled his opponents to spread rumors that he was conspiring to reintroduce Portuguese rule over Brazil. These rumors, while unfounded, severely damaged his popularity.   The Oath of the Thirty-Three Orientals depicts the beginning of the rebellion in the Cisplatina Provine, by Juan Manuel Blanes, between 1875 and 1878. Source: Museo Nacional de Artes Visuales, Uruguay   Pedro I’s reign was also beset by defeat in war. In 1825, a revolt broke out in the empire’s Cisplatina Province. The rebels were supported by the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, the precursor to modern Argentina. The resulting conflict became known as the Cisplatine War.   Pedro I’s forces quickly achieved naval superiority over the rebels and the United Provinces, but the emperor was unable to muster sufficient forces to achieve a decisive victory on land.   In 1827 Brazilian forces suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Ituzaingó during a counteroffensive aimed at recapturing the Cisplatina Province. The spiraling cost of the war, combined with the inability of his forces to achieve victory on land, led Pedro I to agree to a peace treaty in 1828. The treaty recognized the independence of the Cisplatina Province, which became the new nation of Uruguay, while the defeat further increased opposition to Pedro I.   Pedro I’s Abdication and Return to Portugal Dom Pedro, Duke of Braganza (formerly Emperor Dom Pedro I of Brazil and King Dom Pedro IV of Portugal), Maurício José do Carmo Sendim, 1833. Source: National Library of Portugal   The dispute over Brazil’s constitution, the emperor’s ongoing meddling in Portuguese affairs, and the defeat in the Cisplatine War all seriously damaged Pedro I’s popularity. Meanwhile, in 1828 Pedro I’s daughter, Queen Maria II, was usurped as Portugal’s monarch by Pedro I’s brother Miguel, who sought to restore absolutism to Portugal.  Following the overthrow of his daughter, her supporters traveled to Brazil to beseech Pedro I to lead Portugal’s liberal forces against Miguel in what had become the Portuguese Civil War.   For the first time, Pedro I began to seriously consider the possibility of abdicating and returning to Portugal to fight in the Portuguese Civil War. In March 1831, Rio de Janeiro was plunged into chaos when a street battle broke out between supporters of Pedro I and supporters of the opposition. Pedro I tried to defuse the riots by appointing new ministers, which had little effect. When news reached Pedro I that soldiers were defecting to the opposition, he realized that he must abdicate to preserve the Brazilian monarchy.   On April 7, 1831, Pedro I abruptly abdicated as emperor of Brazil in favor of his son, Pedro II. Pedro I, now once again just Dom Pedro, then boarded a British warship bound for Europe, determined to restore his daughter to the Portuguese throne.   The Infante Michael of Braganza depicts Pedro I’s brother Miguel, by Johann Ender, 1827, Palace of Queluz. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In Europe, he found a desperate situation for the Portuguese liberals who supported his daughter. The only Portuguese territory under their control was the Azores islands. However, Pedro I set to work and in 1832 his greatly outnumbered army landed in mainland Portugal and seized the city of Porto. Dom Pedro was now back in mainland Portugal for the first time since 1807.   Miguel’s forces besieged Porto and Dom Pedro and his mane for more than a year. During this time Dom Pedro demonstrated his personal bravery by manning the front lines and living with the common soldiers. In 1833, after dividing his forces and launching a daring amphibious invasion of southern Portugal, Dom Pedro captured Lisbon and forced Miguel to sue for peace, thus restoring his daughter to the throne.   Pedro I’s Legacy in Brazil and Portugal Independence or Death, by Pedro Américo, 1888, depicts Prince Pedro’s declaration of Brazilian independence on September 7, 1822. Source: Museu do Ipiranga   Dom Pedro died of tuberculosis on September 24, 1834, in the royal palace in which he had been born, shortly after achieving victory in Portugal’s Civil War. While no longer emperor of Brazil or king of Portugal, at the time of his death he could take satisfaction in the fact that his son Pedro II, and his daughter, Maria II, were secure in their titles.   Dom Pedro is remembered fondly in both Portugal and Brazil. In Portugal, he is remembered as leading the fight against the absolutism of his brother Miguel. In Brazil, he is remembered as a flawed ruler who, while unable to enjoy a successful reign, led Brazil to independence.

  Susan B. Anthony is beloved for her indefatigable efforts on behalf of women’s rights in the 19th century. She gave hundreds of speeches, penned innumerable letters, and sat for interviews with journalists. The result, thankfully, is ongoing access to both her public and private thoughts, even today. Though they speak to a different time, they still offer valuable guidance on how to maintain courage in the face of adversity, argue for what is right and just, and define one’s self while supporting one’s community.   1. Return to the “Old Union” Speech, 1863 A carte-de-visite-sized card with handwritten text of the Emancipation Proclamation. Source: Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture   “There is great fear expressed on all sides lest this war shall be made a war for the negro. I am willing that it shall be. It is a war to found an empire on the negro in slavery, and shame on us if we do not make it a war to establish the negro in freedom—against whom the whole nation, North and South, East and West, in one mighty conspiracy, has combined from the beginning.”   In 1863, the Civil War was two years old and did not appear to be ending any time soon. President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st of that year, articulating that the war would be about more than just preserving the Union—it was to be about, once and for all, eradicating the system of slavery that had been in place for two hundred years. The Proclamation declared that slaves in states in rebellion (i.e., the Confederacy, not the Border states) “all, and henceforth shall be free.”   While this wasn’t the official end of all slavery throughout the country (which would come in 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment), it was of profound importance. The National Archives explains, “it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.”   Susan B. Anthony was absolutely in favor of the Proclamation, and the quote above expresses her opinion forcefully. She understood the importance of the preservation of the Union, but slavery was an evil that she and her family and friends had been fighting against for decades. Her Quaker upbringing stressed equality of all people in the eyes of God, which certainly informed her views on women and men but also on Black people and white people.   2. “Is it a Crime to Vote?” 1872-1873 Order directing the US Marshals to take Susan B. Anthony to jail on December 26, 1872. Source: National Archives at New York City, Records of District Courts of the United States   “The only question left to be settled, now, is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens, and no state has a right to make any new law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states, is to-day null and void, precisely as is every one against negroes.”   Anthony and about a dozen other women decided to cast a ballot in the 1872 presidential election. The registrar, confused by their presence and demands, allowed them to cast the votes, but Anthony was later arrested at her own home and indicted. She had a trial, but it lacked due process; the judge had instructed the jury to render a guilty verdict regardless of what Anthony said and because Anthony was not allowed to testify for herself. She was found guilty and fined, though she did not pay.   Anthony gave this speech when she was arrested and indicted but had not yet gone to trial. She proclaimed that she would “prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen’s right, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any State to deny.” Indeed, Anthony gained even more fame from her trial. It did not result in any tangible changes like the right to vote, but it did force the American public and government to grapple with the big questions she posed.   3. Social Purity, 1875 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1891. Source: Library of Congress   “Women, like men, must not only have “fair play” in the world of work and self-support, but, like men, must be eligible to all the honors and emoluments of society and government. Marriage, to women as to men, must be a luxury, not a necessity; an incident of life, not all of it. And the only possible way to accomplish this great change is to accord to women equal power in the making, shaping and controlling of the circumstances of life. That equality of rights and privileges is vested in the ballot, the symbol of power in a republic. Hence, our first and most urgent demand—that women shall be protected in the exercise of their inherent, personal, citizen’s right to a voice in the government, municipal, state, national.”   Anthony delivered this speech for the first time at the Grand Opera House in Chicago, Illinois, for a Sunday afternoon lecture course. Her fame had enticed a massive crowd, and she could not get inside the House, instead having to go a back way to reach the stage.   In this speech, she asserted that women need to have as much a say as men do in creating and enforcing the conditions that govern their lives. They need to have political power so they can then have power in other areas, such as marriage. Marriage was the most intimate and important relationship in a woman’s life and one that could, and often did, lead to oppression and misery.   “Our Roll of Honor, Containing All the Signatures to the ‘Declaration of Sentiments’ Set Forth by the First Woman’s Rights Convention held at Seneca Falls, New York, July 19–20, 1848.” Source: Library of Congress   The Declaration of Sentiments, which was devised by the attendees of the 1848 Women’s Rights Convention at Seneca Falls, New York, was drawn up in the style of the Declaration of Independence and listed the ways in which men had deprived women of their natural rights. Marriage was mentioned several times, most dramatically in this claim: “In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.” Anthony’s comments on marriage in her speech were a reflection of just how much this issue mattered to women, and how expanding women’s political freedom would help expand women’s marital freedom.   4. Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States, July 4, 1876 Main Building at the Centennial International Exhibition in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1876. Source: The Greater Encyclopedia of Philadelphia   “Our faith is firm and unwavering in the broad principles of human rights proclaimed in 1776, not only as abstract truths, but as the corner stones of a republic. Yet we cannot forget, even in this glad hour, that while all men of every race, and clime, and condition, have been invested with the full rights of citizenship under our hospitable flag, all women still suffer the degradation of disfranchisement.”   The nation’s centennial was celebrated in 1876 with parades, fireworks, speeches, and a massive exhibition known as the 1876 Centennial Exhibition, or the first World’s Fair. Held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, it was meant to showcase the United States’ industrial accomplishments and celebrate its enduring democracy.   Five women from the National Woman Suffrage Association, which included Anthony, were given passes to attend the Independence Day ceremony but were not allowed to present a declaration they’d written. However, when Senator Richard Henry Lee finished reading his notes, the women moved in front of him to the platform, and Anthony read their declaration. They also passed out copies to the people in attendance.   The quote above shows how the women connected what they were demanding in terms of the privileges of citizenship to what the Americans had demanded from Great Britain when they declared their independence in 1776. They are not asking for anything other than basic human rights and the basic rights given to people in a democratic country. By framing it as such, Anthony and her compatriots offered a logical argument rather than one rooted in caprice, temporality, or passion.   5. “Woman Wants Bread, Not the Ballot!” Flyer announcing an appearance by Anthony in which she would deliver one of her most famous speeches, 1878. Source: Huntington Library   “Governments cannot afford to ignore the rights of those holding the ballot, who make and unmake every law and law-maker. It is not because the members of Congress are tyrants that women receive only half pay and are admitted only to inferior positions in the departments. It is simply in obedience to a law of political economy, which makes it impossible for a government to do as much for the disenfranchised as for the enfranchised. Women are no exception to the general rule. As disfranchisement always has degraded men, socially, morally and industrially, so today it is disfranchisement that degrades women in the same spheres.”   Anthony was a schoolteacher for many years and eventually realized that women in her profession were paid far less than men. In her conversations with other women, she noted that this discrepancy was not just confined to teaching and was, in fact, widespread. In her role in the temperance movement, she also saw that she was treated differently because she was a woman. All of this led her to conclude that attaining the vote was the key to unlocking changes in all these other areas of life.   In this speech, which she delivered multiple times throughout the 1880s, she conceded that the government had no need to seriously consider the plight of those who did not have the full privileges of citizenship. It would only be when women attained that privilege that they would have the power to contest the egregious inequalities they faced in American life.   At the end of the speech, she reminded (or arguably warned) her listeners that women had been “driven to violations of law and order” in some cases (“Women’s crusades against saloons, brothels and gambling-dens”) and that they needed to be taken seriously in their demands. This is reminiscent of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” in which he said that “the Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them…If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history.”   6. Statement Before the US House Committee on the Judiciary, Jan. 24, 1880 Cartoon showing President Grover Cleveland, carrying the book What I Know about Women’s Clubs, being chased with an umbrella by Susan B. Anthony, as Uncle Sam laughs in the background, Charles Bartholemew, c. 1892-1896. Source: Library of Congress   “Then look at the boys of this generation. Before the boy’s head reaches the level of the table, he learns that he is one of the superior class and that when he is twenty-one years old he will make laws for Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Gage, and all these ladies who are mothers. His mother teaches him all the requisites for success in after life. She says: ‘My son, you must not chew, nor smoke, nor gamble, nor swear, nor be a libertine; you must be a good man.’ The boy looks his mother in the face, unbelievingly, and, perchance, at his father, who is guilty of every one of the vices which the mother says he must avoid if he would become a great man.”   The Senate Select Committee on Women’s Suffrage convened in 1880. Anthony and other delegates to the 12th Washington convention of NWSA were allowed to present their statements. Anthony’s statement had several components to it, and at one point, she told a story that resulted in the (all male) members of the committee laughing. One member apologized to her and said their laughter did not mean they were not taking the women seriously, and Anthony replied, “You are not laughing at me; you are treating me respectfully, because you are hearing my argument; you are not asleep, not one of you, and I am delighted.”   This selection offers an interesting argument. It uses a young boy as its main “character,” explaining how he will learn before he is even tall enough to reach the tabletop that he is superior to all the women in his life and will be able to make laws that govern all aspects of their lives. He is incredulous when he hears from his mother about how he must behave and what vices to avoid, as his own father indulges in those vices all the time. By using children, mothers, and fathers as figures in her argument about why it is wrong to deny women the franchise, she appeals to the traditional, family-oriented senators before her. She explains how the current system is not just bad for adults but for children and how it is deeply hypocritical.   7. Organization Among Women as an Instrument in Promoting the Interests of Political Liberty, May 20, 1893 Bird’s-eye view of the Chicago World’s Fair, 1893. Source: Library of Congress   “We have known how to make the noise, you see, and how to bring the whole world to our organization in spirit, if not in person. I would philosophize on the reason why. It is because women have been taught always to work for something else than their own personal freedom; and the hardest thing in the world is to organize women for the one purpose of securing their political liberty and political equality.”   Anthony delivered this speech for the World’s Congress of Representative Women at the Chicago Columbian Exposition of 1893. This Exposition, or the 1893 World’s Fair, celebrated Columbus’s arrival in the Americas 401 years prior and was intended to showcase America’s industrial might, cultural contributions, and moral virtues. The Court of Honor was comprised of exhibition spaces for the new inventions and appliances of the era, and the fact that all of this was illuminated by Thomas Edison’s light bulbs was nothing short of astonishing.   Midway Plaisance and the Ferris Wheel, 1893. Source: Architect’s Newspaper   The Midway was a mile-long commercial strip that provided concessions (hamburgers and soda for the first time!) and exhilarating entertainment. There was the world’s first Ferris wheel; performances by Harry Houdini, Scott Joplin, and Buffalo Bill Cody and his Wild West Show; and “exotic” displays of other cultures. And there were talks: talks about the closing of the American frontier, socialism, politics, the law, and women’s suffrage.   Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were two of the speakers on the subject of suffrage. In this quote, Anthony accounts for why it is so difficult for women to organize for something that is so obviously in their best interest. She explains that the condition of women is to constantly put themselves last, to prioritize their husbands and children and elders, and to sublimate their own needs and desires. Why, then, would they find it easy or natural to come together with a list of demands?   8. Statement Before the US House Committee on the Judiciary, Jan. 28, 1896 Anthony between 1900-1906 by Frances Benjamin Johnston. Source: Library of Congress   The Chairman. “But, Miss Anthony, what I want to know is, where do you stand with the women? We are given to understand that as a rule women do not want the suffrage.”   Miss Anthony. “I do not care where we stand with the women! We have been getting them for fifty years. We are after the men now. Men have the vote, and it is all nonsense to refer me back to the women.”   Anthony delivered a statement in front of the Senate and the House of Representatives asking for an amendment to the Constitution that would give women the right to vote. She explained that it was phrased just like the 15th Amendment—“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”—and was necessary to discuss and vote on in order to “know how far along in the progress of civilization we have moved; just where we stand.”   The Chairman asked her about women, noting that they did not seem to want suffrage, and she replied that she did not care so much about women as men, because men were the ones who had the power to actually bestow the right to vote. When the Chairman pressed that point, she scoffed that children did not want to be in school but that they had to be because it was best for them and that women were classed like children, so her strategy to go to the men made sense. Undeterred by any of the Chairman’s questions, she concluded by acknowledging that she’d “been persecuting you and your predecessors all these years with my presence” and that if they were “the same men [they] would be tired of me.” Her tenacity and pragmatism were still very much in effect, even though she’d been arguing for the same thing for over thirty years by this point.   9. “Our Only Hope,” 1896 Interview With Nellie Bly in The World Journalist Nellie Bly in 1890. H.J. Myers. Source: Library of Congress   “I had barked up the temperance tree, and I’d barked up the teachers’ tree and I couldn’t do anything. I had learned where our only hope rested. I got petitions signed for property laws and for suffrage.”   Nellie Bly was one of the most famous journalists of her era, a fame she attained by going undercover as a patient at Blackwell’s Island, the notorious mental health asylum in New York City, in 1887. She wrote about the terrible conditions she discovered in the New York World, and her exposé helped usher in various reforms. She went on to write about political corruption, working conditions, and child welfare.   Bly interviewed many prominent individuals throughout her career, including Emma Goldman and Eugene V. Debs. Her interview with Anthony took place in 1896, days before Anthony’s 76th birthday and not long after Anthony spoke to Congress about a proposed amendment to the Constitution enshrining women’s suffrage. In an article entitled “Champion of Her Sex,” Bly asked about Anthony’s upbringing and her views on all manner of women’s issues, including divorce and suffrage. In this quote, Anthony succinctly and colorfully explains why she finally realized suffrage was the most important thing to pursue, as it would unlock remedies for all of the other social inequalities that plagued women.   10. “The New Woman,” 1896 Interview With Nellie Bly in The World “An image of the New Woman from 1899—she reads the newspaper in her riding bloomers with her bicycle nearby as her husband does the wash.” Source: Digital Public Library of America   “What do you think the new woman will be?”   “She’ll be free,” said Miss Anthony. “Then she’ll be whatever her best judgment wants to be. We can no more imagine what the true woman will be than we can what the true man will be. We haven’t had him yet. And we won’t until all women are free and equal.”   Midway through the article, Bly asks Anthony about the “new woman.” This “new woman,” as described by the Oxford Research Encyclopedia, was a “real, flesh-and-blood women, and also to an abstract idea or a visual archetype” who “represented a generation of women who came of age between 1890 and 1920 and challenged gender norms and structures by asserting a new public presence through work, education, entertainment, and politics, while also denoting a distinctly modern appearance that contrasted with Victorian ideals.” It was a term people were very familiar with, and by bringing it up, an effective way to solicit one’s opinion about “women’s issues.”   Anthony’s answer is a testament to her intelligence, insightfulness, and ability to inspire hope in others. She stresses freedom, naturally, but frames it in a way that goes beyond the right to vote. A woman will have the opportunity to define the contours of her own life and to be who she wants to be. In fact, it’s not right for Anthony herself to define what the new woman will be or look like because it’s for those women themselves to decide.

The opening night of McCartney‘s US tour saw him perform a Beatles classic for the first time in full since 1965

The controversy over Tucker Carlson’s antisemitic remarks at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service on September 21, 2025, demands answers to two foundational and separate questions: 1. Who gains from the assassination of Charlie Kirk? 2. Is Tucker Carlson advocating antisemitism? To answer these questions, we must first examine the Judeo-Christian tradition itself. Our Founding Fathers were Christian men […] The post Stoking Antisemitism appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.