Final Hist
Final Hist
Final Hist
Zoey Hanson
5 December 2022
Hanson 1
Introduction
Several books have been written on white supremacist politics and its effects on Black
Americans. Works such as Glinda Gilmore’s Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights,
1919-1950. and Hannah Rosen’s Terror in the Heart of Freedom: Citizenship, Sexual Violence,
and the Meaning of Race in the Postemancipation South demonstrate how people of color,
specifically women, were able to transcend oppressive politics to advocate for themselves, their
families, and their communities. However, one population often missing from these narratives is
white women and their perpetuation of white supremacy. Though these women are occasionally
mentioned in passing, they often have no agency in shaping or implementing white supremacy.
For example, Rosen offers a heart-wrenching analysis of how black women attempted to
navigate the politics of white supremacy through their voices, specifically speaking out against a
long, and violent history of sexual violence by white men against black women. Example after
example of Rosen’s narrative reveals how white men used rape and sexual violence to secure
white supremacy. However, nowhere in these accounts do white women. Most of the men
committing these acts of sexual violence had wives, so what part might they have played in
supporting the system? Upon deeper analysis of the historiography, it becomes painfully clear
that women have always maintained and supported white supremacist activities and politics. The
field of white women in white supremacy reveals that white women have played a critical role in
the history of race politics, long before the women of anti-segregation of the 1960s or the new
right of the 1980s. Women were slaveholders, members of the Ku Klux Klan, defenders of the
In general, studies tend to fall into three camps regarding the place and magnitude of
women in white supremacist politics.1 The first views women as the primary motivation for men
upholding white supremacy. In these works, the women are often the excuse and sometimes the
instigators of white supremacy, but they play few active roles. The second camp views women
as partners with men. In these studies, women cooperate closely with men to uphold the values
of white supremacy. The last camp provides the most agency to women, portraying them as
white supremacists in their own right. In these works, white women outright support white
supremacy, engage in political lobbying for white supremacist politics, and commit acts of
violence against Americans of color. Sometimes, these women were unaware of their white
supremacist tendencies such as advocates for progressive and civil rights movements that simply
excluded and discouraged activists of color. While it is important to consider all three of these
approaches to women in white supremacy, the third camp offers the most potential for individual
agency and can reshape how we view the history of white supremacist politics and actions.
The first group of historians highlight the role women play in perpetuating white
supremacy, not necessarily through the women themselves, but through the imagery of
femininity. This group of authors provide interesting insight into how men justified their white
supremacist actions. Often the justifications included the ‘protection’ of white women. Most
books on white supremacist politics touch on the image of womanhood as motivation and
justification. The most popular example authors refer to is the image of the black rapist or the
importance of motherhood to ‘saving’ children from families of color. These ideals are often
portrayed across the historiography, regardless of white women’s role. For example, Crystal
1
However, it is important to remember that some authors fit into two camps, and sometimes all three. These camps
simply act as guides to dominant portrayals and themes of women in white supremacy.
Hanson 3
Feimster’s Southern Horrors; Women and the Politics of Rape and Lynching though focused on
public violence such as lynching, dedicates a significant amount of time to the theory of violence
to protect white women from (fabricated) rape. This is especially relevant in Feimster’s focus on
Ida B. Wells and her anti-lynching advocacy as Wells purposefully challenged these
justifications.
While many authors dedicate only a portion of their analysis to the image of the woman
as justification, Linda Gordon dedicates most of her study in the Great Arizona Orphan
Abduction to feminine imagery. Using a unique case study, Gordon details how women used
racist rhetoric to instigate men into abducting children illegally from adopted homes. When the
white women of Arizona realized that Irish – i.e., white - children were being adopted out to
Hispanic women, they leapt into action, though not physically. Using racialized stereotypes,
white women demanded rescue for these children from ‘prostituting’ women, Mexican food, and
poverty. The orphans and broken racial boundaries specific to the southwest convinced women
to organize. Their voices would encourage posses of men to take these children from their new
homes: “Women were among the most vocal participants, and their influence turned the crowd’s
fury [toward ‘rescuing the children].”2 The women used only their voices and racialized
language to perpetuate racism against Hispanic mothers, which was physically represented in the
actions of their men who removed the children from their new homes. As a result, Gordon
argues, these women erased any ideas of respectable Mexicans who were not worthy of caring
for a white child, despite the white women never stepping foot in a Mexican home.3
motivation for male acts of white supremacy makes Gordon rather unique and classifies her in
2
Linda Gordon, The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001) 114.
3
Gordon, Great Arizona, 199-200.
Hanson 4
the first camp of the historiography. Other authors have done similarly, portraying women
upholding white supremacy without having to dirty their hands, however, Gordon has taken that
a step further, demonstrating how the white women of Arizona were able to use their image and
white supremacy to their advantage by manipulating men who already carried similar beliefs.
Overall, this group of historians is the smallest of the three described here, not because there is a
lack of examples, but because it is scattered throughout works of white supremacy. The
magnitude of the theme across studies highlights the importance of the feminine image to white
supremacy in the mind of men, while also demonstrating the need for authors, like Gordon, to
analyze the implications of these ideals and their effect on Americans of color.
Some authors have done exemplary jobs of making such connections; however, they
focus on masculine imagery and ideals. In their works, the feminine is almost completely
missing. For example, Gail Bederman does an ideal analysis of the effects of images on white
supremacy in her work Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in
the United States, 1880-1917. However, Bederman lacks the feminine perspective, arguing
instead that ideas of masculinity and manliness shaped white supremacist ideas about civilization
and race. Similarly, Matthew Frye Jacobson’s Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters
Foreign People at Home and Abroad, 1876-1917, equates barbarianism with masculinity. In
other words, keeping virtues of masculinity was essential to America’s efforts at imperialism and
the civilizing mission. Again, Jacobson portrays the intimate connection between gendered
imagination and racism but entirely from the masculine perspective. As the field advances,
historians should use Bederman and Jacobson’s studies as guides for making such connections
femininity should be incorporated into similar studies. Gendered imagery existed across the
gender spectrum and should therefore be considered at all levels from masculine to feminine.
The second camp in the historiography of women in white supremacy highlights the
necessary cooperation between men and women to uphold white supremacist ideals. Emeka
Aniagolu refers to these women as “Co-Whites,” arguing that women who may have supported
racial equality ‘betrayed’ the cause to “transform themselves into ‘co-whites’ or ‘co-partners’
with White men in the governance of the racial status quo of power and privilege…rather than to
transform that racial status in favor of racial equality for all.”4 In short, white women, being
beneficiaries of white supremacy, collaborated with white men to solidify white supremacist
politics. Aniagolu’s argument perfectly describes this second group of historians that focus on
collaboration across gender to perpetuate white supremacy. These women did not expect men to
carry out white supremacist acts, nor did they expect to do them on their own. This is perhaps the
most realistic of the three camps. These works demonstrate that no group operates in isolation
and how it takes multiple populations to uphold ideals like white supremacy.
Two authors that affirm Aniagolu’s ‘co-whites’ approach are Elizabeth R. Varon in We
Mean to Be Counted: White Women & Politics in Antebellum Virginia and Margaret D. Jacobs in
White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of Indigenous
Children in the American West and Australia, 1880-1940. Varon and Jacobs both demonstrate
how white women worked with white men to shape white supremacist policies and operated as a
4
Emeka Aniagolu, Co-Whites: How and Why White Women “Betrayed” the Struggle for Racial Equality in the
United States, (Lanham, Maryland.: University Press of America, 2011) 11-12.
Hanson 6
Varon seeks to prove that women were active in politics in the antebellum south.5 She
argues that upper and middle-class white women were not only present, but played an “active,
distinct, and evolving role in the political life of the old south.”6 She, however, gives a disclaimer
that places her within this second camp in which she demonstrates how women and men
collaborated across the public sphere to shape policy: “To be sure, [women] did not lay claim to
the male prerogatives of voting, office-holding, and public speaking, but they did use legislative
petitions, voluntary associations, political campaigns, and published reports, appeals, essays, and
novels to register their political views.”7 Jacobs presents a similar argument where women used
traditional ideas of motherhood as the foundation of activism and social reform.8 She
demonstrates that white women, acting within policies created by white men, were “some of the
most vocal proponents of the assimilation policy for American Indians that promoted boarding
schools,” and women played an active role as educators in these schools to enforce
assimilationist policies.9
However, major differences are evident in these works, demonstrating that historians do
not need to agree to demonstrate the cooperation between men and women in the maintenance of
white supremacy. Jacobs analyzes the active role women played within indigenous boarding
schools. As teachers, these women were the first defense against Indigenous culture. Women
policed young Indigenous peoples’ bodies and taught 'civilizing’ lessons. “Reformers identified
education as a necessary ingredient in their program of Indian assimilation,” and women were
5
While Varon’s work may be set before 1865, it is an important work that demonstrates women’s effect on politics
from within the men’s sphere and is a fantastic example of inter-gender cooperation.
6
Elizabeth R. Varon, We Mean to Be Counter: White Women & Politics in Antebellum Virginia, (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1998) 1.
7
Varon, We Mean to Be Counted, 1-2.
8
Margaret D. Jacobs, White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of
Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880-1940, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009)
xxix.
9
Jacobs, Mother to a Dark Race, xxix.
Hanson 7
essential to the success of boarding schools and therefore assimilation.10 Varon, in contrast, is not
movements and women’s activism within those movements. This included temperance,
abolition, and most relevant, pro-colonization. Varon does not necessarily sanctify southern
white women, but she does portray them in a mostly positive light, a theme that is not prevalent
There is an interesting shift in Varon’s work that would likely be challenged by other
historians. Varon argues that most southern antebellum women were against slavery and
believed in abolition. However, as succession approached, the idea grew that women were not
victims of the system of slavery, as previously believed, but were its beneficiaries. Therefore,
women had a new “public duty to defend slavery.”11 While authors in the historiography would
certainly echo that white women were the beneficiaries of slavery and white supremacy, such as
Aniagolu does, they would likely argue that this shift was not as dramatic and decisive as Varon
portrays. Authors such as Stephanie Jones-Rogers in her work They Were Her Property: White
Women as Slave Owners in the American South, have demonstrated that women were
perpetrators and beneficiaries of racism long before the 1850s. Therefore, while white women
may have been arrested for teaching enslaved children to read or condemned slavery, does not
mean that white women were exempt from encouraging white supremacist policies and actions.
Southern women worked within the chattel slave system in ways that benefitted them.
It is important to note that regardless of what camp a historian belongs to, important
themes exist throughout their studies. For example, Jacob’s work is reminiscent of Gordon’s.
Both authors highlight the role of maternalism and racialized rhetoric in women’s assertion of
10
Ibid., 30.
11
Varon, We Mean to Be Counted, 70.
Hanson 8
white supremacy. Though one author analyzes Hispanic, and the other, Indigenous populations,
there is a clear pattern in white women’s strategies of white supremacy. We have previously seen
how women in Arizona used racialized rhetoric to justify removing children from Hispanic
households to ‘save’ them. Very similar language exists in Jacob’s analysis of Indigenous
boarding schools. The white women who participated in assimilation via boarding schools used
motherhood as a justification for separating Indigenous children from their families. Again, this
was done using racialized rhetoric in which Indigenous women were portrayed as backward,
impoverished, unclean, and uncivilized, a situation from which these children, again, needed to
be saved.12
As in Arizona, women used the image of maternalism and racial stereotypes to separate
children from families of color in exchange for white influence. Jacobs does an excellent job of
summarizing the effects of maternalism when she states, “The ways in which well-meaning
white women became intimately involved in promoting a policy that tore apart Indigenous
families demonstrates the limits of a politics of maternalism. Most materialists lacked the
capability to imagine indigenous women as at once very similar to and quite different from
themselves,” thus reflecting Gordon’s Arizonian women’s reactions to Hispanic mothers.13 The
important theme of maternalism exists across narratives, regardless of the active or inactive role
played by women. This shows that the camps of the historiography are not fixed and definite,
however, maternalism also demonstrates that women, as much as men, used their roles as
mothers and leaders of the domestic sphere to execute man-made policies of assimilation,
The third and final camp of historians offers the most interesting insight into white
supremacy. In older monographs, women take little part in the perpetuation of white supremacy.
However, many new authors have proven that not only did women participate in creating a white
supremacist culture and politics, but they often took leading responsibilities in creating and
upholding racism, sometimes as loudly and violently as the men. The historians of this camp
carry several themes within their studies. The most dominant themes, however, are power and
activism.
supremacist system. For some women, this meant outward racism through groups like the
Women of the Ku Klux Klan or the segregationist movement. For others, white supremacist
rhetoric was not their primary intention, instead, they used it as a tool to accomplish other goals
like suffrage or memorialization efforts. Either way, in all these women's organizations, the role
of reclaiming a semblance of power is clear. Each author demonstrates how white women used
white supremacy to their benefit, by shaping it to fit their cause and to position themselves above
Americans of color, therefore claiming a sense of power that they lacked under an American
patriarchal society. These women did not need men to shape or enforce white supremacy, they
were white supremacists, organizing under the auspices of motherhood and morality. Through
these themes, the third camp of historians demonstrates the social, cultural, and political effects
of women’s involvement in white supremacy. Splitting these authors according to these themes
is difficult because all express both throughout their narratives, but some are stronger than others
Organization and networks are essential to any movement, including women’s efforts at
impressive job of displaying women organizing for white supremacy in their respective works
Mothers of Massive Resistance: White Women and the Politics of White Supremacy and Massive
Brückmann argues that grassroots activists, pivotally led by southern women, organized
against the Civil Rights movement and desegregation, “building on decades of segregationist
ideology, laws, policies, and customs.”14 Brückmann, using reactionary activism against Brown v
Board of Education of Topeka, demonstrates how white women, who had always maintained
ideals of white supremacy, organized, again, under the cover of motherhood to combat
desegregation. The women not only organized and protested but condemned some men for their
failure to protect segregation. These women took what they saw as a threat to racial hierarchies
into their own hands. Brückmann carefully explains that segregation was not the sole target of
these women activists, but “segregationist women’s support for massive resistance was a matter
of white supremacist principle [and Brown} offered them the opportunity to publicly
intervene.”15
resistance:” the women who were central to the movement and any success it had.16 McRae,
similarly to Brückmann, argues that white women, driven by ideas of race, motherhood, politics,
and culture, formed the networks and grassroots movements that maintained the foundations of
white supremacy and segregationist activism. The women of McRae’s narrative follow a similar
path to those in Brückmann’s: they used a rhetoric of motherhood and child protection to create
grassroots movements that actively defended Jim Crow through anti-bussing, textbook, and
14
Gail Brückmann, Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-
1917, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995) 2.
15
Brückmann, Manliness, 3.
16
Elizabeth Gillespie McRae, Mothers of Massive Resistance: White Women and the Politics of White Supremacy,
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 4.
Hanson 11
segregationist campaigns. McRae specifically uses four women activists, following their actions,
motivations, and reactions as an example of larger trends across the movements and masses.
Ultimately, Brückmann and McRae have very similar works, expertly portraying the
centrality of women to upholding segregation politics. Both authors also analyze the importance
of networks to the white supremacist movements. Brückmann however, only briefly focuses on
the theme, arguing that white southern women were adept at forming social activist networks
Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s. Blee proves that several women looked
fondly upon their time in the KKK because it allowed them to meet, and form relationships, with
McRae provides more detail regarding the importance of networks and relationships to
white supremacy among women. McRae dedicates two chapters to the theme of networks,
demonstrating how women in the post-war period had especially increased opportunities to share
political and cultural ideas of racial hierarchies nationally. It is here that McRae expertly
demonstrates the importance of race to several women’s movements, proving that white
supremacists were never a homogenous group. McRae shows that geographically the networks
of white supremacy amongst women were vast and reached beyond the South and that the
women had fundamentally different goals but were united by white supremacy.
Women activists that looked to uphold Jim Crow created networks with other women in
movements such as the temperance movement, those involved with anti-communism, and anti-
court packing and anti-social security causes. Again, this is confirmed by Kathleen Blee when
17
Katherine M. Blee, Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920, (Berkley: University of California Press,
1995) 1.
Hanson 12
she demonstrates how the KKK recruited women from the prohibition, temperance, anti-
immigration, and anti-radicalism efforts. These various women, though they sought different
results, relied on each other for support and strategies, all of which had a foundation in racial
politics. These women found a common enemy in Americans of color and used it as an
granting pride to white supremacist women as their ideology extended geographically and
infiltrated countless new groups. The details on networks demonstrated by McRae reveal the
intricacies of white supremacy and the importance of networks among women to its
maintenance, something other authors hint at, but do not provide much analysis to. Brückmann
argues these networks, friendships, and collaborations amongst women activists of varying
quote perfectly summarizes what many of the historians in the third camp attempt to do.
As the authors in the third camp of the historiography have made clear, all women in
activist networks ultimately sought to regain a sense of power. Oftentimes, white supremacist
rhetoric and action allowed for a sense of release from patriarchal power such as the women in
the Klan or the Daughters of the Confederacy.19 However in other instances, white supremacist
attitudes were used as a defense mechanism against movements that did not align with certain
18
Brückmann, Manliness, 4.
19
Karen L. Cox’s Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of
Confederate Culture, (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2019) reveals how the Daughters of the Confederacy
(UDC) played a “vital role…in shaping the social and political culture of the New South” (page 25). The shaping of
political and social culture often included the perpetuation of the Lost Cause and other narratives harmful to Black
Americans. However, Cox also makes clear that the UDC served as a way for southern white women to assert their
influence and power in southern society. This is confirmed in Glenda Gilmore’s Gender and Jim Crow: Women and
the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896-1920, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
2019) in which she demonstrates the complex nature of white women in the Jim Crow South. For example, she
details how the UDC was used as an organization for women to combat patriarchy while also heavily oppressing
black women. She uses Gabrielle De Rosset Waddell as an example: Waddell became the state president of the UDC
and was simultaneously the first white woman to attend a meeting for women’s interracial cooperation. These
examples from the UDC demonstrate how power, whether against the patriarchy or to oppress Americans of color,
was central to many of these women’s white supremacist organizations.
Hanson 13
progressive women’s causes. These women, who were focused on achieving women’s rights,
oftentimes discounted other activists of color who may have sought something else.
Faye E. Dudden demonstrates the tug-of-war between white woman suffragists and black
suffragists after the Civil War in her study Fighting Chance: The Struggle Over Woman Suffrage
and Black Suffrage in Reconstruction America. She perfectly portrays how white women, who
had once supported black Americans’ rights to vote and equality, had turned to racist rhetoric
when they realized that suffrage would only mean black male suffrage.20 The women who had
once been allies of the black freedom struggle now positioned themselves above black men,
arguing that they, as white women, should receive the vote first. Black men became their
enemies because they, in the minds of these women, stood in opposition to their goal. The
approach of revealing the racist tendencies of women who were seen as ‘ahead of their time’
demonstrates that women upholding white supremacy did not always have to be extreme KKK
members or segregationists; sometimes, they were leaders of national movements for equality.
Cathleen Cahill’s Recasting the Vote: How Women of Color Transformed the Suffrage
Movement, does a similarly excellent job of portraying this understated racism in the name of
activism. However, she pushes beyond simple racist rhetoric and analyzes how suffragists of
color navigated the divide between race and gender. She also moves beyond Dudden by
expanding her scope and disregarding the black-white binary that is found in similar works.
Cahill’s largest strength in comparison with other authors is her expert ability to display the
20
Crystal Nichole Feimster similarly and expertly demonstrates the effects of racist rhetoric in advancing one cause
over another in her work Southern Horrors: Women and the Politics of Rape and Lynching, (Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press, 2011). Feimster uses Rebecca Latimer Felton as an example of racist rhetoric. Felton,
though advocating for women’s protection from rape, targets activists such as Ida B. Wells and anti-lynching
campaigns. Felton encourages white supremacist violence in the name of anti-rape advocacy, infamously arguing
that if protecting women from rape meant lynching a thousand Black Americans a week, then so be it. Ultimately,
Felton, as the first female senator, is a progressive figure, but her racist rhetoric was extremely harmful and allowed
for the perpetuation of white mob violence and brutal lynching.
Hanson 14
suffragists; women of color often had to choose between their womanhood and their ethnicity.
The narratives of the suffragist of color present how women navigated white supremacy that
acted against them, rather than its perpetuation with little reaction, as seen in many of the works
in the third camp. Women of color forced people to acknowledge their presence through
Cahill, however, also presents an interesting idea not demonstrated in other works in the
causes, much like the white women of Dudden’s narrative, the suffragists of color found
themselves using racist rhetoric to discount other groups. For example, Indigenous suffragists
attempted to put themselves firmly on the white side of the racial binary to ally with white
suffragists, however, this meant racist language toward black suffragists. However, the
Indigenous women faced the same oppression when Hispanic suffragists emphasized their
European heritage and conquest of Indigenous peoples to place themselves above Natives in
terms of rights to citizenship and suffrage. Therefore, not only was the racist rhetoric that is
present in so many other studies used by white women to oppose women of color, but it also
became an internalized weapon for women of color to use against one another.
Women, both white and of color, used white supremacy to advance their individualized
goals. Each of the authors in this camp detail how women were perpetrators of white supremacy
through their activism. Certainly, this is the most interesting approach of the three camps. These
historians demonstrate the complexity of white supremacist politics in America since the Civil
War. These works are the most successful in demonstrating the active role women played in
shaping white supremacist politics. The women are truly self-conscious, independent, agents of
history. The women in these narratives, and the women alone, formed strategies, used rhetoric,
Hanson 15
and acted, in defense of white supremacy. They either overtly displayed racism through
organizations such as the KKK and UDC or used it as a strategy to advance their own cause,
such as white suffragists. Overall, to truly understand the impact of women in white supremacy,
the third camp of the historiography offers the most telling and potent examples. The histories of
this camp are growing and continue to evolve as time progresses. No longer are white
supremacists limited to the Klan as in Blee’s book, written in 1991. Now, the historiography has
advanced to include more intricate themes like the internalization of white supremacy in Cahill’s
2020 study or the complexity of white women’s place in society, such as in Glenda Gilmore’s
2019 Gender and Jim Crow. As the field progresses, an increasing number of historians are
likely to add even more nuance to the narratives of women in white supremacy.
Conclusion
Overall, the field of women perpetrators of white supremacy is strong. The field
continues to grow more complex and nuanced, allowing for increased insight. Three camps seem
to have developed regarding women’s role in upholding white supremacy. However, as the field
progresses, it would be beneficial for historians to consider all three approaches to women’s role
in white supremacist systems. Women were the motivation for male white supremacists,
cooperated with men, and formed their own organizations and strategies to uphold racism.
Historians must begin to consider all three as one and the same. Ultimately, white supremacists
are complex, and it is important to demonstrate that complexity. Authors have already begun to
pursue nuance, especially in the intersecting themes of motherhood and racist rhetoric.
Hopefully, the field will continue in this direction until historians can grasp the complete nature
misconceptions that women were not involved in upholding the system until the anti-
segregationists of the 1960s. Many of the works named here are set before Civil Rights and
demonstrate that the chronology of white supremacist women is longer than expected. Women’s
place in white supremacy runs deep. Women have shaped and implemented white supremacist
politics across space and time in the United States. It is important to comprehend this longer
chronology if we are to understand the causes and effects of white supremacy in America.
Women’s participation may very well change how we understand the system and how it was
Bibliography
Aniagolu, Emeka. Co-Whites: How and Why White Women "Betrayed" the Struggle for Racial
Equality in the United States. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2011.
Bederman, Gail. Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United
States, 1880-1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Blee, Kathleen M. Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1991.
Brückmann, Rebecca. Massive Resistance and Southern Womanhood: White Women, Class, and
Segregation. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2021.
Cahill, Cathleen. Recasting the Vote: How Women of Color Transformed the Suffrage
Movement. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020.
Cox, Karen L. Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the
Preservation of Confederate Culture. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2019.
Dudden, Faye E. Fighting Chance: The Struggle Over Woman Suffrage and Black Suffrage in
Reconstruction America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Feimster, Crystal N. Southern Horrors: Women and the Politics of Rape and Lynching.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011.
McRae, Elizabeth Gillespie. Mothers of Massive Resistance: White Women and the Politics of
White Supremacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Gilmore, Glenda Elizabeth. Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights, 1919-1950. 1st ed.
New York: W.W. Norton, 2008.
Gilmore, Glenda Elizabeth. Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy
in North Carolina, 1896-1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2019.
Gordon, Linda. The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 2001.
Hanson 18
Jacobs, Margaret D. White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the
Removal of Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880-1940.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009.
Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at
Home and Abroad, 1876-1917. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001.
Jones-Rogers, Stephanie E. They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the
American South. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.
Rosén, Hannah. Terror in the Heart of Freedom: Citizenship, Sexual Violence, and the Meaning
of Race in the Postemancipation South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
2009.
Varon, Elizabeth R. We Mean to Be Counted: White Women & Politics in Antebellum Virginia.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.