“True philanthropy” and the limits of the female sphere: Poor relief and labor organizations in ante-bellum cleveland

Labor History

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 1986, Pages 227-256

  McTighe, Michael J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1542546752     PISSN: 0023656X     EISSN: 14699702     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00236568608584835     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860,” American Quarterly, 18 (1966), 151-74;
2. Nancy F. Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood: “Woman's Sphere” in New England, 1780-1835 (New Haven, 1978), 1-2, 126-59;
3. Barbara J. Berg, The Remembered Gate: Origins of American Feminism, The Woman and the City, 1800-1860 (New York, 1978), 75-94;
4. Mary P. Ryan, Womanhood in America: From Colonial Times to the Present (2nd ed.; New York, 1979), 75-117;
5. Kathryn Kish Sklar, Catharine Beecher: A Study in American Domesticity (New York, 1976);
6. Carl N. Degler, At Odds: Women and the Family in America From the Revolution to the Present (New York, 1981), 26-110;
7. Catherine Clinton, The Other Civil War: American Women in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1984), esp. 40-41;
8. Mary Beth Norton, “The Evolution of White Women's Experience in America,” American Historical Review, 89 (1984), 604-05, 617-618.
9. Welter “The Feminization of American religion, 1800-1860,” in Mary Hart-man and Lois Banner, eds. Clio's Consciousness Raised, (New York, 1978), 137-55.
10. Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture (New York, 1977), presents a related argument.
11. For the predominance of women in churches, and the effect this has had on both, see also Richard D. Shiels, “The Feminization of American Congregationalism, 1730-1835,” American Quarterly, 33 (1981), 46-62;
12. Mary Maples Dunn, “Saints and Sinners: Congregational and Quaker Women in the Early Colonial Period,” in Janet Wilson lames, ed. Women in American Religion (Philadelphia, 1980), 27-46;
13. Gerald F. Moran, “ ‘Sisters’ in Christ: Women and the Church in Seventeenth-Century New England,” in James, 47-65.
14. The general pattern found by Shiels and Moran also describes Cleveland. Of the 5682 individuals who joined Cleveland churches from 1836-60, 3626 (66.9%) were women. Percentages of women who joined in the years when the Martha Washington and Dorcas Society and the Female Protective Union were active were comparable: for 1846-50, 543 of 865 church joiners (66.8%) were women; for 1851-55, 764 of 1219 (65.7%). This preponderance of women among church joiners does not correspond to their proportion of the city's population. In the sample for the 1850 census males outnumbered females, 1279 (52.8%) to 1143 (47.2%). (See Appendix for an explanation of these figures.)
15. Carroll Smith Rosenberg, Religion and the Rise of the City: The New York City Mission Movement (Ithaca, 1971); Carroll Smith Rosenberg, “Beauty, the Beast and the Militant Woman: A Case Study in Sex Roles and Social Stress in Jacksonian American,” in Gary Nash, ed. The Private Side of American Life: Readings in Everyday Life (New York, 1975), 215-36;
16. Elizabeth Leitch Bonkowsky, “The Church and the City: The Protestant Concern for Social Problems, 1800-1840” (unpublished PhD diss. Boston Univ. 1973); Priscilla Ferguson Clement, “The Response to Need, Welfare and Poverty in Philadelphia, 1800 to 1850” (unpublished PhD diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1977).
17. PauIa Baker, “The Domestication of Politics: Women and American Political Society, 1780-1920,” American Historical Review, 89 (1984), 620-47; Clinton, 44; Ann Firor Scott, “On Seeing and Not Seeing: A Case of Historical Invisibility,” Journal of American History, 71 (1984), 9. In the South, benevolent activities were limited by the physical isolation of individual plantations and the worry that reform might encourage anti-slavery: Catherine Clinton, The Plantation Mistress: Women's World in the Old South (New York, 1982), 6-15, 161-62, 165; Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (New York, 1982), 103-05, describes the contributions of Southern gentility to benevolent causes.
18. John B. Andrews and W. D. P. Bliss, History of Women in Trade Unions (reprint, New York, 1974) 11-83;
19. Alice Henry, The Trade Union Woman (New York, 1973), 1-15;
20. Clinton, The Other Civil War, 18-19, 23, 25-30;
21. John F. Kasson, Civilizing the Machine: Technology and Republican Values in America, 1776-1900 (New York, 1977), 55-106;
22. Norton, 604-05, 617-18.
23. The Washingtonian temperance movement, which began in 1840 in Baltimore and had a reputation for dealing directly with the intemperate, who more traditional, clergy-led societies avoided, is discussed by Walters, 130-34. Jed Dannenbaum, “Drink and Disorder: Temperance Reform in Cincinnati, 1840-1847”(unpublished PhD diss. Univ. of California, Davis, 1978), 30-37; and James Logan McElroy, “Social Reform in the Burned-Over District: Rochester, New York as a Test Case” (unpublished PhD diss. SUNY, Binghamton, 1974), 130-33, describe other Washington societies.
24. Dorcas, from the Greek, or Tabitha in the Aramaic, was a disciple at Joppa who was brought back to life by Peter (Acts 9: 36-43). She was known for making coats and garments, so female sewing and charitable societies took the name Dorcas. There was a Dorcas Society in Salem, Mass. in the early 1800's: Anne Farnam, “A Society of Societies: Associations and Voluntarism in Early Nineteenth-Century Salem,” Essex Institute Historical Collections, 113 (1977), 184. Clement, “The Response to Need,” 223, 350, found Dorcas societies in the 1820s and 1830s in Philadelphia. In Boston the Dorcas Society lasted from 1819 to 1843: Mania Kleinburd Baghdadi, “Protestants, Poverty and Urban Growth: A Study of the Organization of Charity in Boston and New York, 1820-1865” (unpublished PhD diss. Brown Univ. 1975), 103, 107. Other Dorcas societies are mentioned in Anne C. Loveland, Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge, 1980), 167; David R. Goldfield, Urban Growth in the Age of Sectionalism: Virginia, 1847-1860 (Baton Rouge, 1977), 161; Walters, 130-34; Dannenbaum, 30-37; and McElroy, 130-33.
25. Cleveland Plain Dealer, Nov. 9, 1847, 3; Nov. 11, 1847, 3; Nov. 25, 1848, 3; Nov. 17, 1849, 3; Cleveland Centennial Commission, History of the Charities of Cleveland 1796-1896 (Cleveland, 1896), 15; Mrs. W. A. Ingham, Women of Cleveland and Their Work (Cleveland, 1893), 103-05, 107, 109-10.
26. PD, Nov. 9, 1847, 3; Mrs. W. A. Ingham, 103-05, 107, 109-10. The Society's annual reports in the PD give examples: Nov. 11, 1847, 3; Nov. 25, 1848, 3; Nov. 17, 1849, 3.
27. Four of the officers of the Martha Washington and Dorcas Society were founders of or on the Board of Managers of the Orphan Asylum (1853, 1857, 1860), seven were active in the Cleveland Ladies’ Temperance Union (1850, 1853), six were on the entertainment committee of the Academy of Natural History (1845), three were officers of the Female Reform Society (1840, 1843), and five joined a women's committee of the Society for the Relief of the Poor (1851). In addition, one was a director of the Maternal Association (1837). Another was a director of the Female Medical Education Society.
28. Among spouses could be found Josiah A. Harris, the editor and publisher of the Cleveland Herald (1845-60) who had been mayor of the city (1849), had served on the city council (1840, 1846, 1848), and was a director of the Society for the Relief of the Poor (1851); Benjamin Rouse, an officer of the Western Seamen's Friend Society (1848, 1850, 1853, 1857), a director of the Orphan Asylum (1853, 1860), and a candidate of the Democratic (1844) and Free Soil (1849) parties; and Erastus F. Gaylord, a nominee of the Whig (1838), Union (1853), and Citizens’ (1853) parties, a director of a mercantile college (1854, 1857), a manager of the Ladies’ Temperance Union (1853), and a member of the visiting committee of the Cleveland Board of Education (1855). Other spouses were just as active and influential. They included one who was a director of the Society for the Relief of the Poor (1851).
29. The spouses also included three who were on visiting committees for the Board of Education (1849, 1855); three who were officers of the Ladies’ Temperance Union (1850, 1853); four who were directors or Presidents of banks (1853, 1857, 1860), including three who were directors of the Society for Savings; one who was President of the Cleveland and Toledo Railroad (1857, 1860); and one who was a federal judge (1855-60). The Martha Washington and Dorcas Society spouses were nominated, at one time or another from 1836-60, by virtually every party in the city, Whig (2 received nominations), Union (1), Citizens’ (1), Republican (2), Democratic (2), and Free Soil (1).
30. Census information, while scanty, suggests that the officers of the Martha Washington and Dorcas Society were influential and well-to-do. In the 1850 census the occupations of Erastus Gaylord and Henry Gaylord were in the highest of 5 occupational categories. Erastus Gaylord listed real property worth $50,000, which tied him for the highest property-holding of any Clevelander. In 1860 Erastus Gaylord is credited with $50,000 in real property and $30,000 in personal property. Henry Gaylord listed no property in the 1850 census. This may have been an oversight. Ten years later Henry is not listed, but Maria Gaylord, perhaps now “the widow Gaylord” is listed with $30,000 in real property, and $10,000 in personal property.
31. Mary P. Ryan, “A Women's Awakening: Evangelical Religion and the Families of Utica, New York, 1800-1840,” in James, Women in American Religion, 105-06, finds that the spouses of those involved in women's missionary work were substantial retail and wholesale dealers. She discusses the reform community in greater detail in Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790-1865 (New York, 1981).
32. “Cleveland Centennial Commission, 15. Except for two years (1836-37), when it was run by the city, the poor house was operated by the township. According to a letter to the Herald and Gazette, the city spent $7000 per year when it controlled the poor house, but by 1841 the township was spending $500-$600 a year: H & G, June 4, 1838, in U.S. Work Projects Administration, Ohio [Works Progress Administration in Ohio], Annals of Cleveland, 1838 (Cleveland, 1936-38), 2, 65-66; Apr. 27, 1838, in WPA, Annals, 1838, 49; March 31, 1841, in WPA, Annals, 1841, 255. The Martha Washington and Dorcas Society, by way of comparison, spent $205.64 in 1847, $430.30 in 1848, and $525.90 in 1849; PD, Nov. 9, 1847, 3; Nov. 25, 1848, 3; Nov. 17, 1849, 3.
33. The conclusion that sewing women were among the most exploited of workers is from Ava Baron and Susan E. Klepp, “ ‘If I Didn't Have My Sewing Machine.’: Women and Sewing Machine Technology,” in Joan M. Jensen and Sue Davidson, eds. A Needle, A Bobbin, A Strike: Women Needleworkers in America (Philadelphia, 1984), 22-25. For other accounts of sewing women see Davidson, “Introduction,” and Jensen, “Needlework as Art, Craft, and Livelihood before 1900,” in Davidson and Jensen, xi-xxii, 3-19;
34. Edward K. Spann, The New Metropolis: New York City, 1840-1857 (New York, 1981), 72; Clinton, The Other Civil War, 31-32.
35. Similar efforts to organize sewing women were made in Boston before the Civil War: Berg, 167-71;
36. Bonkowsky, “The Church and the City,” 169-70;
37. Philip S. Foner, Women and the American Labor Movement: From Colonial Times to the Eve of World War I (New York, 1979) 41-45; Baghdadi, 167-70;
38. Alice Kessler-Harris, Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States (New York, 1983), 20-44, 48, 54, 65-66, 77; McElroy, 202; Andrews and Bliss, 12-14, 21, 36-39, 58-59; Henry, 6-7; Clinton, The Other Civil War, 30.
39. Tailoresses made a complete garment and sometimes owned their own shops. Seamstresses did piecework on consignment, with more skilled work done often by tailors in a shop: Baron and Klepp, “ ‘If I Didn't Have My Sewing Machine.”, 21-22, in Davidson and Jensen.
40. PD, Jan. 25, 1851, 3; Jan. 29, 1851, 3; Cleveland Daily True Democrat, 2, in WPA, Annals, 1850, 113.
41. PD, Jan. 21, 1851, 3, emphasis in original.
42. Ante-bellum America spawned other cooperative stores. The Church of the Messiah in Boston in the mid-1830's set up a project to cut out and prepare garments for poor women to sew (Bonkowsky, 166). It opened a salesroom, where garments were sold at a small profit. In Rochester, N.Y. a “Journeymen Tailors’ Emporium” was established, but soon collapsed (McElroy, 312). Philadelphia tailoresses established a cooperative store in 1850 (Henry, 13, and Andrews and Bliss, 82-83). In New York, The Shirt Sewers’ Cooperative Union lasted at least two years (Andrews and Bliss, 59-60). Thomas Dublin, Women at Work: The Transformatin of Work and Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1826-60 (New York, 1979), 121-22, finds an active cooperative movement in Lowell. See also, Foner, 43; and Kessler-Harris, 81-82.
43. Ohio, vol. 40, p. 96, R. G. Dun & Co. Collection, Baker Library, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Cambridge, MA.
44. PD, Jan. 24, 1851, 2; Jan. 21, 1851, 2; Jan. 31, 1851, 2.
45. PD, Jan. 25, 1851, 3. Morse responded in the PD, Jan. 31, 1851, 3.
46. PD, Feb. 7, 1851, 2; Jan. 31,1851, 3.
47. PD, Jan. 31, 1851, 2; Feb. 7, 1851, 2, emphasis in original. Some of the specifics of Morse's charges are unclear. The barb in his concern about “Young Slade” taking time from his “profession” most likely was that Slade was just beginning to establish himself. Later in the decade he would be a candidate of the Citizens’, Union, People's, and Republican parties, but all this was in the future.
48. PD, Feb. 7, 1851, 2, emphasis in original.
49. DTD, Feb. 6, 1851, 2, in WPA, Annals, 1851, 115.
50. DTD, Feb. 4, 1851, 2, in WPA, Annals, 1851, 114-15. For PD editorials in favor of the sewing women's cause, see PD, Dec. 11, 1851, 3 and Dec. 12, 1851, 3.
51. PD, Oct. 30, 1851, 3; WPA, Annals, 1851, 111-12.
52. The DTD, digested in the WPA, Annals, which covered the Union's activities in its disputes with Morse in 1851, did not mention it in 1852 and 1853. There are no mentions of the Female Protective Union in the Annals for 1854-60, which are digested from the Leader. The Plain Dealer, another Democratic paper which followed the Union's activities in 1851, doesn't mention it from 1852-60, a conclusion based on a close reading of every issue. Compare, by way of contrast, an article promoting T. W. Morse and Co. in the PD, Nov. 3, 1853, 3. The PD ran ads for T. W. Morse's clothing shop even while it printed letters attacking him by the supporters of the Female Protective Union: Jan. 25, 1851, 4; Jan. 31, 1851, 4; Feb. 12, 1851, 4.
53. Ingham, Women of Cleveland, 105, 111; DTD, Dec. 4, 1850, 2, in WPA, Annals, 1850, 464-65.
54. The concern that poor relief become more systematic and the growing involvement of city governments in other cities is described in Clement, 21, 38-40, 98-99, 145-49, 182-214, 253; Spann, 73-75, 77, 85-87;
55. Gary Lawson Browne, Baltimore in the Nation, 1789-1861 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1980), 49; Raymond A. Mohl, Poverty in New York, 1783-1825 (New York, 1971), 22, 30-33, 117-18, 138, 247; JohnK. Alexander, Render Them Submissive: Responses to Poverty in Philadelphia, 1760-1800 (Amherst, 1980), 6, 86-102; and Paul S. Boyer, Urban Masses and Moral Order in America (Cambridge, MA, 1978), 65, 132-37.
56. Ingham, 106-07. The call for a more permanent form of relief can be found in the DTD, Dec. 4, 1850, 2. In 1849 the state gave the city the power to tax land to support a poor house: Charters of the Village of Cleveland, and the City of Cleveland, With Their Several Amendments: To Which is Added the Laws and Ordinances of the City of Cleveland (Cleveland, 1851), 47; PD, Mar. 22, 1849, 2. Later in 1849 the city authorized a poor house and hospital. The building, completed in 1855, was known as the City Infirmary. In 1860 it housed 240 paupers. Samuel P. Orth, A History of Cleveland, Ohio (Chicago-Cleveland, 1910), I, 403.
57. PD, Dec. 20, 1851,3.
58. PD, Jan. 17, 1851, 2; DTD, Jan. 17, 1851, 2, in WPA, Annals, 1851, 436.
59. Names of those active in the Female Protective Union are from the PD, Jan. 29,1851, 3; Feb. 8, 1851, 2; Oct. 23, 1851, 3; Oct. 30, 1851, 3; Dec. 11, 1851, 2. The social distinctions between the women who were officers of the Martha Washington and Dorcas Society and those active in the Female Protective Union are captured in Gerda Lerner, “The Lady and the Mill Girl: Changes in the Status of Women in the Age of Jackson,” in Jean. E. Friedman and William G. Slade, eds. Our American Sisters: Women in American Life and Thought, (2nd ed. Boston, 1976), 20-32.
60. aughan and Slade were active later in the decade, as well. Vaughan is listed as the editoi of the DTD in 1853. In 1853 Slade was an officer of Euclid Street Presbyterian Church. He ran for poltical office as a candidate of the Citizens’ (1853), Union (1853), People's (1854, 1856), and Republican (1857) parties. Both Vaughan and Slade joined in the effort to aid revolutionary Hungary (1852). An R. G. Dun & Co. report characterized Slade as an “honest g[oo]d man.” Ohio, vol. A, p. 318, R. G. Dun & Co. Collection.
61. PD, Jan. 24, 1851, 2; Jan. 31, 1851, 2.
62. Ln many cases, only those last names and first initials of the “opponents” were given. Although these names could not be linked with people active in public life under the criteria developed for record linkage (Appendix), they reinforce the impression that the opponents of the Union were formidable. “N. Dockstader,” undoubtedly Nicholas Dock-stader, was a mayor (1840), city council member (1836-37), and a director of banks and railroads. “E. Gaylord,” “H. Gaylord,” and “L. Benedict,” are probably Erastus. Gaylord, Henry Gaylord, and Levi Benedict, spouses of Martha Washington and Dorcas Society members, whose activities were discussed earlier as examples of extensive involvement in business, political, and religious life.
63. “PD, Jan. 25, 1851, 3.
64. “Links between religion and leadership groups have been found in other towns of the Western Reserve, see James Herbert Stuckey, “The Foundation of Leadership Groups in a Frontier Town: Canton, Ohio, 1805-1855” (unpublished PhD diss. Case Western Reserve Univ. 1976), 266-68.
65. Morse served on the board of directors of the Young Men's Total Abstinence Society (1841) and was a delegate from the Cleveland City Temperance Society to a county temperance convention (1847).
66. PD, May 8, 1847, 3; Julius P. Bolivar MacCabe, Directory: Cleveland and Ohio City, For the Years 1837-38 (Cleveland, 1837); WPA, Annals, 1839, 249; PD, Mar. 15, 1843, 3.
67. PD, Dec. 19, 1851, 2; Dec. 22, 1851, 2; Dec. 27, 1851, 2.
68. David Montgomery, “The Working Class of the Pre-Industrial American City, 1780-1830,”
69. Labor History, 9 (1968), 18-19;
70. Mary Bosworth Truedley, “The ‘Benevolent Fair’: A Study of Charitable Organizations Among American Women in the First Third of the Nineteenth Century,” Social Service Review, 14 (1940), 517-19, 521.
71. Andrews and Bliss, 45-49, 57; Mary H. Blewett, “Work, Gender and the Artisan Tradition in New England Shoemaking, 1780-1860,” Journal of Social History, 27 (1983), 220-24, 229-30, 236-39. Blewett, 227, also describes occasions when womens’ unions and strikes were supported by men.
72. ‘Clinton, The Other Civil War, 30; Blewett, 228; Baron and Klepp, “ ‘If I Didn't Have My Sewing Machine. “ in Davidson and Jensen, A Needle, 24. Present-day unions resist home employment, for many of these same reasons. They argue that it makes enforcing the minimum wage and restrictions on hours and working conditions difficult. See Stuart Taylor, “U.S. Court Reinstates Rules on ‘Industrial’ Home Work,” New York Times, Nov. 30, 1983, 11.
73. This is an argument presented by Rosenberg, 230-36;
74. Berg, 145-270;
75. Walters, 101-12;
76. Marlene Stein Wortman, “Domesticating the Nineteenth-Century American City,” in Jack Salzman, ed. Prospects: An Annual of American Cultural Studies, 3 (New, York, 1977), 531-72.
77. For the general unwillingness of the ante-bellum Protestant community to question the fundamental justice of prevailing economic arrangements see James H. Moorehead, “Social Reform and the Divided Conscience of Ante-Bellum Protestantism,” Church History, 48 (1979), 416, 420; Ronald G. Walters, 21-37, 213-16;
78. Martin E. Marty, Righteous Empire: the Protestant Experience in America (New York, 1970), 95-110;
79. Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War (New York, 1965), 148-62;
80. Ian R. Tyrrell, Sobering Up: From Temperance to Prohibition in Antebellum America, 1800-1860 (Westport, CT, 1979), 129; William G. McLoughin, “Charles Grandison Finney.” and lohn L. Thomas, “Romantic Reform in America, 1815-65,” in David Brion Davis, ed. Ante-Bellum Reform (New York, 1967), 97-119, 153-76.
81. Cott, Rosenberg; Baghdadi, 103-08.
82. The same interlocking network has been found in other cities by M. J. Heale, “From City Fathers to Social Critics: Humanitarianism and Government in New York, 1790-1860,” Journal of American History, 61 (1976), 21-41;
83. Kathleen McCarthy, Noblesse Oblige: Cultural Philanthropy in Chicago, 1830-1910 (Chicago, 1982), 3-96; Mohl, 138, 152-54;
84. Judith M. “The Burned-Over District Revisited: Benevolent Reform and Abolitionism in Mexico, Paris, and Ithaca, New York, 1825-1842” (unpublished PhD diss. Univ. of Virginia, 1974), esp. 418-41;
85. Don Harrison Doyle, The Social Order of a Frontier Community: Jacksonville, Illinois, 1825-1870 (Urbana, 1979), 179, 223;
86. James Logal McElroy, 98-104, 176;
87. Robert Z. Padernacht, “The Contributions of the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor to Child Welfare, 1843-1939” (unpublished PhD diss. St. John's Univ. 1976), 6-15;
88. Keith Melder, “ ‘Ladies Bountiful’: Organized Women's Benevolence in 19th Century America,” New York History, 48 (1967), 240, 248-49;
89. Ryan, Womanhood in America, 105; Ryan, “A Women's Awakening,” 104-08. The motives or function of reform-minded social elites have been interpreted in a number of ways. Variations on the theme that ante-bellum reformers were a displaced elite can be found in essays in Davis, Ante-Bellum Reform including Clifford S. Griffin, “Religious Benevolence as Social Control, 1815-1860,” 81-96.
90. Joseph R. Gusfield, “Temperance, Status Control, and Mobility, 1826-60,” 120-39. The same arguments are presented in more detail in books by Griffin and Charles I. Foster: Griffin, Their Brother's Keepers: Moral Stewardship in the United States, 1800-1865 (New Brunswick, NJ, I960). Lois Banner has challenged this interpretation in “Religious Benevolence as Social Control: A Critique of an Interpretation,” in John M. Mulder and John F. Wilson, eds. Religion in American History: interpretive Essays (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978), 23-41.
91. Some recent histories have treated the reformers as part of a new industrial culture which sought to replace older hierarchical ideals with an ideology of self-restraint: Paul E. Johnson, A Shopkeeper's Millenium: Society and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815-1837 (New York, 1978), 6, 8, 136-41;
92. Anthony F. C. Wallace, Rockdale: The Growth of an American Village in the Early Industrial Revolution (New York, 1978);
93. Alan Dawley, Class and Community: The Industrial Revolution in Lynn (Cambridge, MA, 1976), 113-22. Religious and humanitarian reformers are described in social terms by Judith Well-man and M. J. Heale.
94. Lois Scharf, “The Great Uprising in Cleveland: When Sisterhood Failed,” in Jensen and Davison, A Needle, 146, 156-60, 164, 176-80, finds a similar division between female strikers of the working class and social feminists and suffragists of the middle class in the Cleveland garment strike of 1911.