Thank you so much for doing this AMA, Dr. Jones! I spend a lot of time talking with teachers about curriculum and one of the things we always wrestle with is the tension between simplicity for our littlest learners and teaching more complicated, more accurate history. Work like yours and The 1619 Project have pushed history education work forward in a way that seemed impossible just a few years ago. Some of the hard work now lies in specifics of teaching said history.

So, my question is basically, how would you advise teachers frame the 19th Amendment for elementary and middle school students? That is, is there a particular framing such as "white men gave white women the vote" or "white women got the right to vote, but didn't make sure Black women did, too" that you would advise for teachers when they're initially presenting the history to students?

Thanks!

What are your thoughts on the Marxism vs. Intersectional liberalism debate?

Thank you for answering our questions! In the struggle for the right to vote, were there added difficulties for black women that identified as Hispanic?

Thanks so much for taking the time to join us!

What strategies, on both local and national levels, did these amazing women in the vanguard use to build support for voting rights? What parallels do you see in the modern context? How do we apply what they learned to secure access to the vote for all Americans?

Thanks again!

What did black women differ about? We’re there north south tensions, class divisions, religious splits etc?

Hello Martha, thanks for doing this ama:) I haven't read your book Soni would have to ask you more general questions, I hope you will still take them seriously. For one, black women haven't even been included in democracies most of history I think (only for men/white men) so I presume you are talking about more recent democracies? Another question is do you consider USA today a democracy? I know many consider it an oligarchy and it will be interesting to hear what a learned person has to say on the matter, and while we're at it would you consider Israel a democracy (if you know enough about it)? It interests me also if you consider a non-liberal democracy a democracy (I don't know if these are the correct terms, I mean a democracy where freedoms and rights can be bypassed by majority vote). Last silly question, are you aware that you have the same name as the doctor who companion? Thanks for reading and maybe responding:)

I've found that one way in which people sometimes try to discount activists' work is by placing that organized, purposeful activism in contrast to some kind of idealized "organic" action. The best example I can think of is some of the discussion around Rosa Parks, where the fact that she was a politically knowledgeable and active person gets either forgotten or elided in favor of "she was tired and didn't want to get up." Some people even point to the fact that it was a purposeful action as a way to downplay what she did. I'd assume that there have been similar pushbacks against many of the women you've profiled, ie that they are just "activists" or "agitators?" And how much did they try to shape that narrative themselves, one way or the other?

Dr. Jones, from my reading about the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, I get the impression that the contribution of women to the struggle has been under estimated and under reported. Do you think this perception is correct and if so why was this the case?

Thank you for doing this AMA- I'm curious about how Black women's involvement aided their fight for the vote. How active were Black women activists in movements like the temperance movement or others, and was there overlap in who fought for social causes versus political ones?

Thank you for this fascinating AMA Dr Jones. I can't imagine the amount of pushback some of these brave women faced. Especially in the 19th and early 20th century, how large were these organizations? Was there communications and cooperation across the continent, or more activity on a smaller regional or state level?

If I may, I wanted to ask a few questions about your background. Specifically I saw in your biography that you studied law and then went back to school to get your doctorate in history. Was there some sort of event or revelation that caused you to change course and become an historian? And also, do you feel like your background in law and working on the ground in New York City shaped the way you approached history both during your doctoral program and now as a scholar? Signed - a very curious history undergrad!

Dr. Jones, thank you for taking the time for this.

As an Elementary teacher, I am teaching either US History or California history depending on the year. I have read a lot in regards to how various states applied voter suppression to people of color (unfortunately). There is plenty to read about the various Jim Crow laws throughout the South.

How did it look, though, away from the South? How did it look for women of color in the Midwest, California, or various other places that often gets largely forgotten about? I know that there were plenty of local and state laws that restricted voting rights, but how can I show that to 10 and 11 year olds?

Alas, it appears I missed this, and thanks for joining us!

If you do check in again, though, here's a question on a different aspect of your academic interests: what do we not know about Roger Taney that we should?

A lot of people deny things such as systemic racism or voter disenfranchisement exists and it's simply a matter of a group of people needing to pull themselves up by their boot straps. What's the best way to open a dialogue about that with those people without them shutting down or simply fall back on the "they just want special treatment" type arguments?