Celebrating the Return of Women’s History Month While its Existence is Under Attack

                                          The official National Women's History Month 2025 poster.

Note—Back in 2017 I  seemed to have awakened channeling a Trumpista…in 2025 that fear and loathing has been made policy.  All Federal agencies are now forbidden to sponsor, participate in, or even mention Women’s History Month, Black History month and any celebrations of ethnic, racial, or religious pride identity—save a particularly select version of Christianity.  Now continued observation and participation are acts of Resistance.

Well that was close!  The country just escaped the annual ordeal of Black History Month.  There should be an investigation into that.  Clearly a Barack Hussain Obama Muslim Commie Plot to bring this Great Country to its knees.  We have to endure those smug Black History Minutes on our TVs and other assaults on White goodness.

Now no sooner is that nightmare behind us than we discover the whole damn month of March is supposed to be given over to Women’s History!  Don’t get me wrong, I adore women.  Love ‘em to death!  I always open the door for Ladies and tip my MAGA cap to them.  My sainted Mother was a woman and my wife—when she is not in one of her moods—is an angel on earth.  But lately it like Satan has taken possession of most of them!  They have forgotten their proper duty as obedient wives and pure daughters waiting to be the vessel of the race. 

A lot of the blame goes to this Women’s History Month which has filled their airy heads with ridiculous notions, holding up harpies and nags as heroines, and making examples of women pushing their way into the God-given realms of men.  The whole thing even started with those damn socialists and was pushed by the black helicopter crowd at the United Nations!  Look it up yourself.

I say we put an end to this now!  Let’s declare this White Man’s History Year.  It’s always been that way before.  Let’s make it official.  That’ll shut ‘em all up! 

Phew!  That was exhausting and draining.  I can’t keep it up even in the tradition of internet snark.  Let’s play it straight now for a look back at the real origins of Women’s History month.

A 1908 New York City Garment Workers strike inspired unionists and socialists to proclaim a Working Women's Day the following year.  By 1911 the day went world wide when it was adopted by the Socialist International.

The loonytoon I was channeling got one thing right—we owe it to trade unionists and members of the Socialist Party in New York City who on February 28, 1909 organized a Women’s Day to celebrate the anniversaries of a garment workers’ strike the year before and a march by women in the needle trades for the 10 hour day back in 1857.  The event was such a success the Socialists took it national the next year and made it annual.  In 1911 the Socialist International took it up and spread it across Europe.  After the interruptions of all solidarity movements caused by World War I, the celebrations resumed and spread.  They were also adopted by the new Communist International (Comintern.)

In America, however, the post-war period was marked by a Red Scare and a wave of the greatest repression in U.S. history aimed squarely at Socialists, Communists, anarchists, and militant unionists.  Despite the long fought for victory of women’s suffrage in those same years, the mostly middle class women who had led the struggle did not want to identify their movement with the radicals.  Even as Women’s Day spread globally, its observance here was limited to a kind of labor ghetto.

Second wave Feminism of the '60's and '70's revived interest in International Women's Day in the U.S.   

It took decades to regain a foothold in this country spurred by the new wave of feminism in the ‘60s and ‘70s the rise of Women’s Study and History in the colleges and universities.  They got a boost in 1975 when the United Nations officially adopted International Women’s Day on March 8.

First to act were educators at the Sonoma, California school district in 1978 who added a Women’s History Week centered on International Women’s Day to the official curriculum.  It mostly centered on age appropriate projects highlighting leaders of the suffrage movement.  The press picked up the story and spread it.   Sonoma teachers took the idea to state and regional conferences and by the next year school districts across the country were adopting or adapting the idea and curriculum. 

National Women’s History Project co-founders Molly Murphy MacGregor, the Sonoma County California educator who helped pioneer a National Women’s History Week curriculum on the left with Paula Hammet, Mary Ruthsdotter, and Maria Cuevas.

First to act were educators at the Sonoma, California school district in 1978 who added a Women’s History Week centered on International Women’s Day to the official curriculum.  It mostly centered on age appropriate projects highlighting leaders of the suffrage movement.  The press picked up the story and spread it.   Sonoma teachers took the idea to state and regional conferences and by the next year school districts across the country were adopting or adapting the idea and curriculum.  

 
Sonoma’s Molly Murphy MacGregor brought the idea to a 15 day conference of the Women’s History Institute at Sara Lawrence College in September 1979 organized by Professor Gerda Lerner.  The idea of Women’s History week caught fire and Lerner became a vocal spokesperson for creating an official national event.

 
President Jimmy Carter acted quickly.  In February of 1980 he proclaimed National Women’s History Week centered around National Women’s Day on March 8.  His proclamation read:

 

From the first settlers who came to our shores, from the first American Indian families who befriended them, men and women have worked together to build this nation. Too often the women were unsung and sometimes their contributions went unnoticed. But the achievements, leadership, courage, strength and love of the women who built America was as vital as that of the men whose names we know so well. As Dr. Gerda Lerner has noted, “Women’s History is Women’s Right.” It is an essential and indispensable heritage from which we can draw pride, comfort, courage, and long-range vision. I ask my fellow Americans to recognize this heritage with appropriate activities during National Women’s History Week, March 2–8, 1980. I urge libraries, schools, and community organizations to focus their observances on the leaders who struggled for equality—Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriet Tubman, and Alice Paul. Understanding the true history of our country will help us to comprehend the need for full equality under the law for all our people. This goal can be achieved by ratifying the 27th Amendment [Equal Rights Amendment] to the United States Constitution, which states that “Equality of Rights under the Law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

School Districts, municipalities, and states began making proclamations.  Politicians of both political parties were eager to curry favor with the growing women’s movement realizing that women not only made up a majority of the electorate but also actually went to the polls in significantly greater numbers than men.  Even Carter’s explicit endorsement of the ERA was not then as partisan an issue as we might now believe.  Republican Party platforms from the 1920’s on had endorsed the ERA.  Many Republican women—and some male politicians—even supported the Roe v. Wade decision and reproductive choice.  In fact middle class suburban White women were a major force in the GOP.

 
Conservative icon Ronald Reagan was comfortable annually renewing Women’s History Week proclamations.  Republican First Ladies Betty Ford and Barbara Bush were both vocal supporters of the ERA, abortion rights, and other feminist issues.  Although not so vocal during her Born Again Christian husband’s Presidency, Laura Bush was known to hold similar views.

 
The non-partisan nature of support for women’s issues was illustrated when Utah Senator Orin Hatch and Maryland Democratic Representative Barbara Mikulski co-sponsored the first Joint Congressional Resolution proclaiming a Women’s History Week for March of 1992.

Before things changed.  With wide bi-partisan support in Congress George W. Bush was able to publicly sign a Presidential Proclamation honoring Women's History Month.  Now the GOP seems to wear systematic misogyny as a badge of honor.

By the latter year Congressional Republicans were in full retreat on women’s issues as they became more and more beholden to the Religious Right who opposed both the ERA and reproductive choice.  But Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all continued to issue Presidential proclamations. 

Under the influence of the Tea Party  Congressional Republicans  abandoned virtually any semblance of supporting women’s rights and have become actively hostile to the point of prideful and open misogyny while Republicans in control of state legislatures propose ever more bizarre attacks on women.  The elevation of an exposed sexual predator and open misogynist Donald Trump to the Presidency and his alliance with the hard core Religious Right transformed the Republican Party into a bastion of White male privilege and hostility to women.

Meanwhile on the Democratic side the Obama administration initiated the landmark 2011 Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being report and advanced women’s causes and defended their interests via appointments and executive orders when Congress has blocked action.

The bitter and hard fought contest between  Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016 largely centered on which candidate was best for women, and whether women owed their support to the possible first major party female presidential candidate.  There was a bitter and divisive split between older women and traditional feminist leaders on one hand and many younger, poorer women on that hot button issue.

 

Women were a huge part of the Blue Wave that put Democrats in control of the House in 2018. Women of color including Alexandra Ocasio-Ortiz, top, and Lauren Underwood, second from the bottom were a vital presence.

However women on both sides of that divide were spurred run for office creating a mighty surge that swept women into power at every level of government in 2018.  They were largely responsible for the Blue Wave that gave Democrats a firm majority in the House of Representatives.  And they hit the ground running with a bold progressive agenda.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously stared down the Cheeto-in-Charge over the Government shutdown and his beloved vanity project, the Border Wall and ultimately brought the House to vote to impeach Trump.  Freshmen stars including Alexandra Ocasio-Ortiz, Ilhan Omars, Sharida Davids, and Illinois’ own Lauren Underwood struck terror in Republicans

Ms Magazine, the iconic voice of U.S. feminism celebrated the record number of women in the Biden administration including Vice President Kamala Harris, Cabinet and agency heads, and key White House staff.

Meanwhile four women were among a large field of credible Democratic Presidential hopefuls for 2020—Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand.  Only Warren and Klobuchar remained in the primary race and progressive Warren still had a chance to win the nomination until Trump.s Pocahontas slur and charges she had identified as Native American only to qualify for minority opportunity educational grants.

Joe Biden turned out to be a strong advocate of the progressive women’s agenda reversing Trump policies when possible, defending reproductive health and choice, appointing women in unprecedented numbers to top administration posts.  On his way out the door he even reiterated the need to finish adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment, even if he did make a confusing hash out of his statement.

But despite this Biden was forced to withdraw from the race a Trump rolled on to nomination for another term because of his age, frequent gaffs, and fragility.  Vice President Kamala Harris took up the reigns and untied the Party, and many women behind her.  Despite enthusiasm and optimism, Trump rode a campaign of lies, smears, and fear into victory in November—a crushing and demoralizing blow.
As his second administration roll out daily assaults, women are regrouping, reorganizing, and committing themselves to joining a wide resistance. 

This year the National Women’s History Project was planned before the election.  It has proclaimed this year’s theme—Moving Forward Together! Women Educating and Inspiring Generations.

This theme celebrates the collective strength and influence of women who have dedicated their lives the education, mentorship, and leadership. Through their efforts, they have served as an inspiration for all generations—both past and present.

No wonder the MAGA crowd is grumpy..


 

 

Alexander Hamilton’s Very Bad Day at Weehawken

You think politics today is a vicious contact sport?  Sissy stuff.  On July 11, 1804 the sitting Vice President of the United States plugged a Founding Father in the gut leaving him to die in agony a day later.  It was the most famous Affair of Honor in American History—the fatal meeting between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, a bluff overlooking the Hudson River and the City of New York beyond. 

The men, so alike in temperament and ambition, were long-time bitter political rivals.  

Alexander Hamilton--the bastard son of small time Barbados merchant and certified Founding Father at the peak of his career in 1792 as the first Secretary of the Treasury and George Washington's most trusted advisor.  Detail from a full length portrait by John Trumbull.

Hamilton, of course, was George Washington favorite, the virtual son he never had.  After distinguished service as Washington’s aide-de-camp in the Revolution, he became the principal author of the Federalist Papers.  As Secretary of the Treasury, he famously paid off American war debt and established the First Bank of the United States.  Thomas Jefferson’s bitter personal and political rival, Hamilton founded and was the chief architect and organizer of the Federalist Party.  In New York he was a successful lawyer and businessman who married into the wealthy and powerful Patroon dynasty, the Schuylers.

Yet despite his wealth, success, and fame, he was humiliated by the humble circumstances of his birth as the bastard child of a Scottish clerk on the island colony of Barbados.  He would be haunted by rumors that his mother was a mulato creole.  He knew that he was not by rights a gentleman and his foreign birth forever precluded him from becoming truly Washington’s heir as President.

Aaron Burr is commemorated for his service as the third Vice President by this bust in the Senate chamber.

Burr was born in more privileged circumstances, the son and namesake of a leading Presbyterian divine and the second president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton.)  He served with distinction in the Revolution displaying battlefield bravery and shrewd tactical acumen many times.  He achieved the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, but despite his notable achievements was not elevated to higher rank by Washington—a cause of personal bitterness.  After the war Burr married the daughter of a British officer and moved to New York where he became the leading criminal defense attorney in the city.  After a turn in the State Assembly, Burr’s political fortunes rose under the sponsorship of Governor George Clinton, the leading northern ally of Jefferson in his emerging Democratic Republican Party.  Clinton appointed young Burr state Attorney General and backed him in 1791 when Burr beat incumbent Phillip Schuyler—Hamilton’s father-in-law—to take a U.S. Senate seat. 

Although their previous personal relations were cordial much of their mutual enmity grew from this confrontation.  In the end Burr grew restless in a Senate dominated by Federalists and prolonged absences hurt his income as an attorney on which he was dependent since he was not personally wealthy.  He resigned his seat to return to the state Assembly.  Officially an independent with Republican leanings, Burr also drew support from moderate Federalists who became alarmed at Hamilton’s attacks on President John Adams.  In the city Burr assembled his own political organization, considered by many one of the first political machines.  He enlisted the support of a local patriotic society, The Sons of St. Tammany, in addition to Jefferson loyalists. 

In the election of 1800, New York and its rich electoral vote was considered pivotal.  Burr was named running mate to Jefferson on the Democratic Republican ticket in the hope that he could deliver New York, although the Assembly was in Federalist hands before the election.  Federalists in the city under Hamilton were in disarray, divided by his tepid support of the President.  A private letter by Hamilton highly critical of Adams’ character was published causing considerable damage and Burr was suspected—but never proven—to be behind the dirty trick.  Meanwhile his new machine paid off handsomely.  Republicans swept the city taking with it the Assembly which in turn selected Republican electors. 

Under the Constitution at the time the candidate with a majority of electors won the presidency and the second place finisher became vice president.  This system was in place before the development of parties.  There was no provision for tickets or a designated vice presidential candidate.  There was a plan for one elector to withhold a vote to Burr, but mysteriously none did so, resulting in a 73-73 tie vote between Jefferson and Burr.  The decision was thrown into the House of Representatives where Federalists held a substantial edge.  

The election of 1800 was thrown into the House of Representatives when Jefferson and Democratic-Republican running mate both received 73 Electoral College votes.

The House soon deadlocked.  Despite public and private statements deferring to Jefferson, ever ambitious, Burr privately courted friends of John Adams among the Federalists to block Jefferson.  Hamilton sprang into action himself, unleashing a flurry of letters urging the election of Jefferson who he considered the “far less dangerous of the two.”  However, much he detested Jefferson, he despised Burr more.  On the 36th ballot Hamilton convinced two of his supporters to abstain.  Recognizing defeat, Burr’s moderate Federalist support fell in line behind Jefferson.  Needless to say, after the intrigue relations between the new President and Vice President were icy. 

Against this festering background, things came to a head in 1804 as it became apparent that Jefferson would dump Burr as Vice President.  He turned his eyes to a comeback in Albany as Governor. These plans were squashed when Hamilton threw his support behind another Republican, Morgan Lewis.  During the campaign an ardent supporter of Hamilton sent a letter to his father-in-law Philip Schuyler excoriating Burr and alluding to “a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”  The letter indiscreetly found publication in the Albany Register.  Burr whipped off a letter demanding of Hamilton an “explanation and apology.”  Hamilton professed ignorance of any such statement and refused to apologize. 

After subsequent exchanges through intermediaries, Burr formally challenged Hamilton.  At many points in this exchange either party could have diffused the situation over a slight which many historians believe did not rise to the occasion of an affair of honor even among the prickly.  But they did not.  Hamilton may have been suffering depression over the downturn of his political fortunes—the defeat of Adams had destroyed the Federalists as a national party leaving behind only a sectional rump in New England.  He had also been humiliated by a sexual blackmail scandal which had caused him to issue a public letter admitting to indiscretions.  And he was also deeply in debt.  Most of all, he mourned the loss of his son Philip who had been killed on the Weehawken dueling ground in 1801 in a fight at least partly over his father’s honor. 

Plans were laid for the duel, which would be held in secret in New Jersey because dueling had been outlawed in New York State and because both men, despite participation in earlier duels, were publicly opposed to the practice.  In a document written to be found in event he was killed, Hamilton wrote that:

I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my second fire. 

This was a common, honorable, practice which was usually, but not universally, honored in turn by the second party refusing to fire or “wasting his shot.”  In this manner most duels ended bloodlessly but honorably.  But Burr had no way of knowing that this was Hamilton’s intention.  

Only fanciful pictures of the duel exist.  This one at least shows Hamilton wasting his shot in the air.  But all the seconds and witnesses stood apart with their back turned so as not to be able to testify as eye witnesses.  The men arrived by boat across the Hudson, not by carriage.  And Burr would have broken his wrist and probably his nose had he discharged his pistol in such a ridiculous manner.

There was no eyewitnesses testimony to the shooting itself.  The seconds to both men and the hired oarsmen who had ferried them across the Hudson were positioned with their backs to the action so that if called to court they could truthfully testify that they did not “witness fire.”  The best reconstruction of the events goes as follows—although a minority historians debate virtually every single particular to this day. 

The men faced each other at a distance of less than twenty feet.  Hamilton faced east, across the river with the morning sun in his eyes.  There was a slight, rising mist.  Hamilton ostentatiously practiced aiming and sighting his pistol and polished his glasses for better vision, which would have indicted to Burr that he intended to shoot.  By lot, Hamilton had the first shot.  He raised his pistol and fired high into the air, the bullet lodging in a tree limb high above and to the left of Burr.  But this was not the common way to “waste a bullet” which was to fire into the ground. 

Burr may have concluded that he had simply come under incompetent fire.  At any rate, he leveled his matched pistol and fired, striking Hamilton in the stomach.  The bullet grazed his liver and diaphragm before becoming lodged in his spine, likely paralyzing him below the wound.  He crumpled to the ground immediately. 

Turning around witnesses describe Burr as looking shocked and starting toward Hamilton before his second rushed him away, hiding him behind an umbrella.  Hamilton told Dr. David Hosack, “The wound is fatal” before collapsing into unconsciousness.  The doctor soon lost trace of a pulse or sign of respiration.  Seconds hurriedly carried the wounded man to the boat, where he revived. 

Carried to the home of an acquaintance Hamilton lingered until the next day, much of the time awake but delirious with pain. 

Burr must have known that his political career was as dead as Hamilton.  Public outrage was great.  He was indicted for murder in both New Jersey and New York.  Burr fled the city to the South Carolina plantation of his beloved daughter Theodosia.  The murder charges in New Jersey were eventually dismissed. 

Burr returned to Washington to finish his term as Vice President, dutifully presiding over sessions of the Senate.  His final days were marked as the presiding officer in the impeachment of Federal Judge Samuel Chase with what a contemporary said was, “with the dignity and impartiality of an angel and the rigor of a devil.”  Soon after he summoned all of his considerable charm in an emotional farewell to the Senate that had even some of his old enemies in tears. 

Burr turned his attention to adventurous schemes in the West including a filibustering campaign to liberate Texas from the Spanish—or possibly to set himself up a ruler of an inland empire.  Unfortunately for Burr one of his fellow plotters was the Commanding General of the U.S. Army James Wilkinson, who was also a long-time secret agent of the Spanish (can’t make this kind of stuff up, folks.)  As authorities began to uncover the plot, Wilkinson saved himself in a letter to President Jefferson putting the whole thing in Burr’s lap.   

Burr defends himself at his treason trial presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall.

Jefferson was eager for revenge on Burr and had him prosecuted for treason.  The President was foiled at the 1807 trial presided over by Federalist Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall sitting as a circuit judge who directed a verdict of acquittal on the grounds that no eyewitnesses to any overt acts could be found.

Fleeing notoriety and creditors Burr went to Europe where he tried to raise money for further western adventures.  He lived for a while with noted British Unitarian Jeremy Bentham.  He was eventually ordered out of England and Napoleon Bonaparte refused to entertain him to hear about his plot to seize Spanish Florida and/or British Caribbean islands. 

In 1812 Burr returned to New York, where he was tried for murdering Hamilton but acquitted.  He resumed the practice of law and his charm ensured a wide circle of friends.  One feeble attempt at a political comeback failed.  His heart and health were broken when his beloved daughter Theodosia and his grandson perished in a shipwreck.  A long-time widower, he married a wealthy heiress late in life, but she walked out after only four months after discovering that Burr was siphoning her riches to support Western land investment schemes.  She was granted a divorce on the day he died.  September 14, 1836 at the age of 80 after a paralyzing stroke.  

Hamilton is more kindly remembered by history,  His bust stands on the old Weehawken Dueling Grounds in New Jersey overlooking the Hudson River.

The Burr-Hamilton Duel spurred opposition to dueling in the North.  Burr, with his reputation for shady dealings and political opportunism is generally cast as the villain of the story by historians.  But he had his supporters, including liberal novelist Gore Vidal, who made Burr the hero of one of the novels in his multi-volume American history arc.  

Following the duel Anti-dueling sentiment spread, laws against the practice were more scrupulously enforced and new ones were enacted where they had not previously been enforced.  By 1830 most of the nation outlawed dueling, and it was rapidly disappearing in the North. It long remained common, however, among the Southern Planter class and in the military, two places in which honor depended on the acknowledgement of others and could be irretrievably lost if not defended.

The climatic duel in Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton. 

Most contemporary Americans, of course, owe everything they know about Hamilton, Burr, and the duel to Lin-Michal Miranda’s phenomenally successful Broadway sensation Hamilton.