Restaging the Suffrage Fight in ‘Suffs: The Musical’

No longer is the contested history of the women’s suffrage movement confined to women’s history classes. It can now be seen on the Broadway stage.

Suffs, the Hillary Clinton–backed new musical, celebrates the fight for the vote for women while exposing the divisions over tactics, strategy and inclusion within the suffrage movement.

I attended the musical’s July 1 performance. However, the real Fourth of July fireworks took place the next night, when activists unfurled banners from the theater’s box seats during the musical’s first act that read, “SUFFS is a white wash,” bringing the performance to a standstill.

Most Popular Stories

Most Popular

Playbill, Broadway’s bible, offers the most thorough account of what occurred. As it recounts, the protesters, who describe themselves as “radical, anti-racist, queer feminists,” make the following statement on their website, CancelSuffs.com:

The demonstrators’ webpage insists that the play “edits out the racist history embedded within many of the suffrage leaders depicted within the show.”

That was more or less true of the pre-Broadway version that first appeared at New York’s Public Theater two years earlier. Despite its claim to offer the “an unflinching look” at the “brilliant, flawed women working against and across generational, racial and class divides,” that original iteration didn’t pay enough attention to Black and other radical critiques of the suffrage movement.

But this complaint is untrue of the heavily revised script that showcases Ida B. Wells and Mary Church Terrell and highlights their role in picketing the White House in support of women’s suffrage. Indeed, in response to the protest, Laila Erica Drew, who plays Phyllis Terrell, Mary Church Terrell’s activist daughter, posted the following response on Instagram:

In its current form, the musical does a good job of introducing audiences to Carrie Chapman Catt, who led the National American Woman Suffrage Association, the successor to the groups founded by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Stone, and to Alice Paul, the more militant co-founder of the National Women’s Party, who shifted the suffrage movement’s focus to a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The show also brings a host of other now largely forgotten suffrage advocates to public notice, including:

• Alva Belmont, the multimillionaire socialite who founded the Political Equality League in 1909 to support pro-suffrage politicians in New York and helped integrate the suffrage movement in that state.
• Phoebe Burn, the mother of Harry T. Burn, the Tennessee legislator who cast the deciding vote for the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
• Lucy Burns, the National Women’s Party’s co-founder.
• Mary Garrett Hay, Catt’s partner in a Boston marriage.
• Dudley Malone, the third assistant secretary of state under Woodrow Wilson, who resigned to protest the president’s failure to support a suffrage amendment to the Constitution and secured the release of suffragists who had staged demonstrations in front of the White House.
• Inez Milholland, the lawyer and peace activist who led the 1913 women’s suffrage parade in Washington, D.C.
• Doris Stevens, who later chaired the Inter-American Commission of Women, the first political forum for women’s rights and gender equality across the Western hemisphere.
• Ruza Wenclawska, the Polish-born trade union organizer.

Of course, good intentions are not an effective measure of a work’s artistic merit.

My impression is that the audience quite liked the show, even though some critics have found it too “bouncy,” “banal,” “clunky,” “exhausting,” “bloated” and overly cautious and excessively “self-congratulatory.”

An undergraduate who reviewed the show for the Columbia Spectator damned the work as the kind of Broadway show that “your aunt will love,” peddling “surface-level activism, hollow and outdated, that does not ever manage to say anything new.” Ouch.

Suffs’ problem, the reviewer insists with some justice, is not that the current version sanitizes the past, but that in the interests of political correctness it comes across as overstuffed, as it seeks “to broadcast an empty political correctness.” An example is “the LGBTQ plot shoehorned into the last half an hour of the musical” and a tacked-on conclusion—sung by a young Black woman in contemporary dress—that derides the limitations of the suffrage movers and shakers.

When The New York Times reviewed the show in its original form, it told its readers that the musical wasn’t “a tedious history lesson” or a dreaded three-hour feminist scolding. And, certainly, at its best, the performance is genuinely fun. The musical features drag, vaudeville-inspired skits, cartoonish satire and silly parodies.

But the verdict that the original Times review offered does, I am afraid, still ring true: The show comes across as “defanged”—“it is guilty of stifling an impressive—though exhausting—breadth of U.S. history through its contemporary lens.”

The reviews of Suffs underscore the difficulties that face a playwright who is trying to create a work that is historically accurate, engaging, relevant and inspirational, while also taking account of the criticisms leveled at the suffrage movement’s leaders.

Some of the challenges are almost insuperable:

• Staying true to the historical record while crafting a coherent narrative with dramatic appeal that fits into a typical play or musical’s running time.
• Doing justice to various factions within the larger movement, each with its own distinct strategies and goals.
• Creating multidimensional characters with complex personalities and their own contradictions and balancing between idolization and critique.
• Addressing the roles and contributions of women of color, working-class women and other marginalized groups, while acknowledging the often exclusionary practices of the mainstream suffrage organization.
• Making the story relevant to contemporary audiences without imposing modern sensibilities and judgments on historical figures.
• Navigating the current cultural climate and sensitivities while telling a story rooted in a different era’s social norms and prejudices.

Making matters worse is the paucity of artistic works dealing with the women’s suffrage campaign, which greatly heightens the expectations placed on any individual work.

As a teacher, I asked myself how I might be able to use the play to stimulate classroom discussion and debate. The performance raised several questions that I might pose to my students:

1. How radical was the American suffrage movement in the context of its time? Here, it is important to recognize that the movement was not monolithic. The demand for women’s political equality was certainly a radical idea, and the suffragists’ more militant wing was indeed radical in its use of media and its confrontational tactics, including a march on Washington, protests at the White House and a hunger strike staged in prison.

But the mainstream movement’s radicalism was tempered by strategic conservatism in framing its arguments and in its inclusivity, sidelining issues of race and class to maintain broader appeal.

Also, the more mainstream movement often framed its arguments in terms of women’s roles as mothers and moral guardians, suggesting that their participation in politics would purify and elevate public life, thus using traditional roles to justify a radical change.

2. Which ultimately proved more effective in winning the vote for women, the more radical protests staged by the National Women’s Party, or the conservative methods, such as lobbying, petitioning and working within the political system, favored by the National American Woman Suffrage Association? Or were other factors at play? Those other factors included a desire to frame World War I as a fight to extend democratic values and a perception of the vote for women as a moderating force at a time when labor and socialist agitation was increasing. Here, we might note that women’s suffrage was adopted by virtually all Protestant countries in the war’s wake.
3. What was the relationship between the early 20th century suffrage movement and other forms of agitation and ferment that challenged the status quo at the time? The fight for the vote for women was only one of many movements for artistic, cultural, political and social transformation, in which women played a leading role. Both artistic modernism and Progressive reform in the early 20th century were significantly driven by women’s activism and leadership, making these, to a striking extent, women’s movements.

Women not only played pivotal roles in advocating for and implementing reforms in social welfare, public health, education, labor rights and political participation, but they also helped to shape and direct the broader Progressive agenda. More than ever before, the Progressive Era saw women stepping out of traditional domestic roles and becoming more visible in public life through activism and professional careers.

4. What explains the rise of a host of new kinds of women’s organizations in the United States around the turn of the 20th century? Women’s social and political mobilization around the turn of the 20th century is extraordinary. There was the American Association of University Women, founded in 1881; the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, formed in 1890; and the National Association of Colored Women, established in 1896. There were women’s sororities (including the historically Black Alpha Kappa Alpha and Delta Sigma Theta, established in 1908 and 1913, respectively), along with settlement houses and labor organizations (such as the National Women’s Trade Union League, founded in 1903). Alongside the morally conservative Women’s Christian Temperance Union and Anti-Saloon League, there were many more radical labor, social justice and socialist organizations, like the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, formed in 1915.

Within the same organizational and bureaucratic impulse that contributed to the rise of the modern corporation and the first professional organizations in the late 19th century can also be seen the emergence of literally thousands of women’s associations, clubs, groups, leagues, societies and sororities. Among the factors that contributed to this development was a growing recognition that power and influence in modern society depended upon collective, coordinated action. There was also an embrace of organizations as platforms for individuals to network, share knowledge and advocate for their interests.

Arising partly in response to exclusion from many male-dominated spaces, the proliferation of women’s organizations was fueled in part by the growing number of women who attended colleges and received professional training. Colleges and universities, especially those that were single-sex, encouraged a growing number of women to apply their education in social, political and artistic arenas and to form and participate in organizations to support their professional development and exert influence. These organizations provided fertile ground for women to organize, mobilize and effect significant social change.

---

As I left the Music Box Theatre, I asked myself why Suffs failed to live up to the high standard set by Hamilton, which it clearly attempted to emulate. After all, it, too, is timely and culturally, politically and socially relevant. It also chose a timely topic, adopted diverse color- (and gender-) conscious casting and is lively, dynamic and entertaining.

Like Hamilton, it draws upon serious historical research. The playwright had clearly consulted primary sources, such as letters, diaries, newspapers and official documents, to gain authentic insights.

Suffs did situate the events within the broader historical context and understood the motivations, beliefs and circumstances of the characters from their perspective. And, for the most part, the play avoided historical anachronisms and made sure that the characters spoke, thought and acted in ways that aligned with their period.

In addition, the playwright presents multiple perspectives to reflect the diversity of thought and experience during the period and depicts the internal conflicts and debates that occurred among contemporaries.

So, what went wrong, apart from failing to capture Lin-Manuel Miranda’s magic—Hamilton’s innovative storytelling structure, groundbreaking use of music, lyrical complexity and inventive choreography?

Here’s my answer:

Miranda did a better job of richly developing his characters, giving them distinct personalities and motivations. He humanized his characters and gave them greater emotional and psychological depth. His goal was to create an emotionally powerful, deeply affective and accessible work of art, not to claim to recapture the story of the American Revolution and the founding and politics of the new republic.

Hamilton was also better at exposing the complexity of the characters’ tactical and strategic disagreements. That play successfully avoided a simplistic good-versus-evil narrative and instead explored the shades of gray that characterize real historical events.

Then, too, Hamilton was more successful in encouraging the audience to empathize with historical figures by presenting their choices and dilemmas within the context of their time. While speaking to a timely issue like immigration, that musical avoided judging past actions by contemporary standards and didn’t preach or try to send a simple message.

Most important of all, Hamilton, more than Suffs, focused on universal themes involving the nature of power, justice, freedom and legacy. While the play is set in a specific historical period, its themes resonate with contemporary audiences while remaining true to the historical context.

I also asked myself whether there might be other dramatic approaches to the suffrage movement that might have been more effective. Given how much history needs to be packed in, is there a way to tell the story that feels less bloated? Are there ways to treat the suffrage movement’s leaders critically but nevertheless as inspirational? After all, Carrie Chapman Catt, whatever her flaws and limitations, organized and led the largest, most politically successful women’s movement in American history. I think these are questions well worth asking our students.

I strongly believe that if we want to truly bring the past to life, monographs and textbooks aren’t sufficient. Movies, novels, plays and musicals have a vital role to play.

These works help us understand the human dimension of cultural and historical change and the struggles and profound transformations in values and behavior that are part of such changes. They can recover the look, feel and atmosphere of the past and reveal emotional and psychological truths and interpersonal dynamics that only the very best biographers and historians can uncover.

These works might provide alternate lenses on the experiences of early-20th-century women.

Here are a few examples.

1. A multigenerational saga. The closest this country has to a multigenerational saga about turn-of-the-20th-century America are probably John Steinbeck’s East of Eden and Booth Tarkington’s The Magnificent Ambersons. Those novels aren’t the equal of One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez’s epic exploration of Colombia’s transformations under the impact of modernization and the role of women played in transforming society. Nor are they American equivalents of Colleen McCullough’s The Thorn Birds or John Galsworthy’s The Forsyte Saga.

Almost certainly the greatest American multigenerational saga is Amy Tan’s The Joy Luck Club, which explores the tensions and misunderstandings between the immigrant mothers raised in China and their American-born daughters, underscoring generational differences in expectations and aspirations. But it covers a later period.

Still, Steinbeck’s tale, set largely in California’s Salinas Valley and focusing on the intertwined lives of two families, does offer valuable insights into the changing role of women across generations, the struggles inherent in generational change and the quest for identity, self-knowledge and independence in the face of the weight of history and of family bonds. It also explore the concept of timshel, a Hebrew word meaning “thou mayest,” which suggests that individuals have a choice to overcome sin and moral failings.

Tarkington’s novel, in turn, traces a prominent family’s decline as the town industrializes and modernizes and the family refuses to adapt to changing times. Underscoring the impermanence of wealth, status and social structures, the once-magnificent Amberson mansion, a symbol of the family’s former glory, falls into decay, mirroring the family’s declining fortunes. Wealth and status are no longer guaranteed by birthright but are increasingly determined by innovation, adaptability and entrepreneurship.

2. Multiple stories woven together. Instead of telling a single, integrated story, E. L. Doctorow’s Ragtime captures the cultural ferment and dynamic and turbulent spirit of the early 20th century by weaving together multiple stories and vignettes that reflect the complexities and contradictions of the era. Through the lives of three families—an upper-middle-class family in New Rochelle, near New York City; an immigrant Jewish family; and an African American family—the novel lays bare the burgeoning conflicts over shifting gender roles, immigration and racial inequality; underscores the profound stratification of the time; captures the period’s cultural shifts; and reveals the era’s tension between tradition and progress, aspiration and inequality and individuality and societal forces.

3. Fictional works capture the complexities, challenges and evolving roles of women during this transformative era. While there is no American equivalent to Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway, which explores the societal expectations placed on women and an individual woman’s struggle with her identity and desire for independence over the course of a single day, works such as Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth, Kate Chopin’s The Awakening and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s short story “The Yellow Wallpaper” provide detailed explorations of women’s daily lives and struggles during this period. Collectively, these works reveal the oppressive nature of women’s gender roles, their limited avenues for financial independence and the psychological consequences of the constraints placed on women.

Wharton’s novel reveals the relentless social pressures and expectations placed on upper-class women to secure advantageous marriages and maintain social standing.

---

There’s been a tendency among some historians to downplay the significance of women’s enfranchisement—to claim that it didn’t have an immediate or profound impact on American politics and policymaking. That’s wrong. One can’t begin to understand the push for the abolition of child labor, the establishment of maternal and infant health-care clinics or the efforts to end war apart from the vote for women.

Direct responses to the vote for women include the first two women governors, Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming and Miriam “Ma” Ferguson in Texas, the first female U.S. senator, Rebecca Latimer Felton (though she only served for a single day) and the first female representative, Montana’s Jeannette Rankin.

We live in difficult and discouraging times. Sniggering cynicism, skepticism and pessimism are the order of the day. We dwell on past failures and compromises to excuse our own shortcomings and inadequacies.

At a time like this one, we need reminders of what a true age of reform looks like. The dawn of the 20th century was such a time, when women’s active participation in the suffrage movement, modernism in the arts and a wide range of social reforms reshaped the social, political and cultural landscape of the United States. Yes, we ought not to minimize that era’s limitations. But we have a responsibility to recognize—and celebrate—its genuine accomplishments.

Though marred by evils, failures and moral compromises, the past also provides sources of inspiration and exemplary models to emulate. May the past help ignite the future.