Temple 1974 , Dowling 1986 , and English Literature in Transition, 1880–1920 prove that scholarly interest in the fin de siècle did exist prior to the 1990s, but as Temple indicates, the term itself was perceived to have shaky intellectual status at the time and chiefly took its identity from the decadent movement that forms the mainspring of Dowling’s work. A number of centennial conferences and events in the late 1980s and early 1990s stimulated a new wave of interest in the literature and culture of the period 1880–1900 that tended to be interdisciplinary in approach. Several durable and significant collections of essays emerged as a result: Stokes 1992 set the agenda for much work that followed, with its engagement with wider cultural history of the period and the recovery of some “forgotten” writers; Ledger and McCracken 1995 is rather more informed by critical and theoretical concerns with contributions by scholars such as Terry Eagleton and Anne Janowitz, who bring expertise from different fields to bear on the period. Pykett 1996 is a collection aimed more directly at undergraduates with a focus on commonly taught popular fiction. More recently, Marshall 2007 , like all works in the Cambridge Companions series, seeks coverage of all critically current aspects of the period with excellent scholarly apparatus and is a good starting point for students and more advanced scholars alike. Brockington 2009 provides a good interdisciplinary overview of the broader European artistic context during the period.
/tiles/non-collection/W/WIC_Essay1_9_Mott_Anthony_Stanton_ Image courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol Sculptor Adelaide Johnson’s Portrait Monument honors three of the suffrage movement’s leaders: Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. Unveiled in 1921, the monument is featured prominently in the Rotunda of the . Capitol. Catt’s steady strategy of securing voting rights state by state and Paul’s vocal and partisan protest campaign coincided with the Wilson administration’s decision to intervene in the First World War, a development that provided compelling rhetoric and a measure of expediency for granting the vote. 10 The NAWSA publicly embraced the war cause despite the fact that many women suffragists, including Rankin, were pacifists. Suffrage leaders embraced President Wilson’s powerful argument for intervening in the war to bolster their own case: the effort to “make the world safe for democracy” ought to begin at home by extending the franchise. Moreover, they insisted, the failure to extend the vote to women might impede their participation in the war effort just when they were most needed to play a greater role as workers and volunteers outside the home. Responding to these overtures, the House of Representatives initially passed a voting rights amendment on January 10, 1918, but the Senate did not follow suit before the end of the 65th Congress. It was not until after the war, however, that the measure finally cleared Congress with the House again voting its approval by a wide margin on May 21, 1919, and the Senate concurring on June 14, 1919. A year later, on August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment, providing full voting rights for women nationally, was ratified when Tennessee became the 36th state to approve it.