Trial of Susan B. Anthony

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Susan B. Anthony
Page 2 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The trial of Susan B. Anthony , United States v. Susan B. Anthony , was a criminal trial against Susan B. Anthony in US federal court in 1873 . The defendant was a women's suffrage leader who was arrested for voting in an election in Rochester, New York in 1872 when state law allowed only men to vote. Anthony relied on the recently adopted 14th Amendment .

The judge Ward Hunt was a recently appointed "US Supreme Court Justice", who was responsible for the "Federal Circuit Court" in which the trial took place. He did not allow the jurors to discuss the case, but ordered them to find Anthony guilty. Anthony, who was not allowed to testify before, gave a very famous speech at the end. When the judge fined her $ 100, she said she would never pay it. Hunt then announced that she would not be jailed for refusing to pay. This measure prevented Anthony from taking the case to the Supreme Court.

The process was followed closely by the national press, and this coverage helped turn women's suffrage into a national concern. It was a major step in transforming the women's suffrage movement, which encompassed a wide variety of concerns, into a movement primarily focused on the right to vote. Judge Hunt's controlled judgment has caused controversy for years in the legal community. In 1895 the Supreme Court recognized that a federal judge was not allowed to prescribe a jury in a criminal trial to pronounce a guilty verdict.

background

Early desire for women to vote

The desire for women's suffrage grew out of the broader women's rights movement that developed in the United States in the early 19th century. In the early days of the women's movement there was little desire to vote, as the focus was on issues such as women's right to speak in public and the right to property for married women. At the first Women's Rights Convention, the Seneca Falls Convention , held in western New York State in 1848, the only resolution that was not unanimously approved was the one calling for women's suffrage. It went back to Elizabeth Cady Stanton , who then began her career as a leader in the suffrage movement. It was only adopted when Frederick Douglass , a former slave and leader of abolitionism, gave it strong support.

This convention helped popularize the idea of ​​women's suffrage, and at the time of the first National Women's Rights Convention in 1850, women's suffrage was a generally accepted sub-goal of the women's movement.

Women started voting. In Vineland, New Jersey , nearly 200 women tried to put their ballots in a separate ballot box to be counted for the 1868 election. But they were unsuccessful. Lucy Stone , a nearby women's rights leader, also tried to vote shortly thereafter; likewise without success.

New departure strategy

This new departure strategy was based on the belief that the recently adopted 14th Amendment, together with the upcoming 15th Amendment, established women's suffrage on their own.

In early 1871, the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) officially adopted this new departure strategy. She encouraged women to try voting and start trials in federal courts if they were denied the right. The NWSA, organized in 1869 by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton , was the first national women's rights organization. A rival organization called the American Woman Suffrage Association , which was formed a few months later, did not adopt this strategy, but fought for state laws to allow women to vote.

Soon hundreds of women were trying to vote in dozen of locations. Accompanied by Frederick Douglass, 64 women tried to get registered on the electoral roll in the spring of 1871. And more than 70 tried to vote.

In November 1871, the "Supreme Court" of the "District of Columbia" ruled against the process motions that the women had brought in. The reason was that citizenship did not include the right to vote, and it was formulated that "the legal vindication of the natural right of all citizens to vote would, at this stage of popular intelligence, involve the destruction of civil government" (German: " the legal admission of the natural right to vote for all citizens, with this state of the intelligentsia of the people, would mean the destruction of the bourgeois system of government ”) and it said:“ The fact that the practical working of the assumed right would be destructive of civilization is decisive that the right does not exist. "(German:" The fact that the practical effect of the alleged law would be destructive to civilization is crucial for the fact that the law does not exist. ")

Arrest and conviction for voting

Participation in the presidential election

When Susan B. Anthony managed to vote in the presidential election in Rochester, New York, in 1872, the response was very different from previous unsuccessful attempts. Because Anthony was a nationally known personality. In 1863 she founded the Women's Loyal National League together with Stanton during the Civil War. And she was the main organizer of the signature collection for the anti-slavery petition, which was very effective with nearly 400,000 signatures. She and Stanton were the leaders of the National Woman Suffrage Association . At the time she put her ballot in the ballot box, Anthony was the best-known advocate of women's suffrage.

John Van Voorhis

On November 1, 1872, Anthony and three sisters registered as voters and made sure that the process was published in a newspaper. When there was resistance to the registry inspectors' behavior, Anthony encouraged her to stand firm by assuring her that she would even pay the cost of a lawsuit. She was assisted by a local lawyer named John Van Voorhis, who himself was an advocate for women's suffrage. Other Rochester women also registered, nearly 50 in the end.

On election day, November 5, 1872, Anthony and 14 other women from their constituency voted at the polling station, having previously sworn an oath in front of the supervisors that they were eligible to vote. Despite the legal doubts, participation in the election was allowed. In other electoral districts the women were turned away because there had been negative reports about them in the days before.

arrest

Anthony didn't expect (according to Ann D. Gordon, a historian of women's suffrage) that she would be able to vote. Instead, she had expected to be dismissed, after which she wanted to file a lawsuit in federal court to enforce her right to vote. She also did not expect to be arrested.

On November 14, arrest warrants were issued for the women who voted and for the election inspectors who allowed them to do so and shown to the press. William C. Storrs, one of the commissioners for the US Circuit Court for the Rochester Area, wrote a letter inviting Anthony to come to his office. Anthony refused to want to make his acquaintance. On November 18, a US Deputy Marshal came to her home and arrested her. The other 14 women who had voted were also arrested, as were the electoral inspectors in their constituencies.

Henry R. Selden

Anthony chose Henry B. Selden as her attorney, a respected local attorney who previously served as Lieutenant Governor of New York and served as a judge in the New York Court of Appeals. She also quickly enlisted John van Voorhis as an attorney for the election inspectors. A bail of $ 500 was set for each of the women arrested, and this was also made. However, Anthony declined this option. However, she was not sent to prison, although this could have been done with the approval of her lawyer.

Speech tour before the trial

Anthony's arrest became national news, which gave her a chance to gain publicity for women's suffrage. She made speeches in 29 towns and villages in Monroe County where the trial was to be held and where the judges would be selected for their trial. Her speech was entitled "Is it a crime for a US citizen to vote?" (German: If the election is a crime for a US citizen? ) The speech was reprinted in full in the daily newspapers Rochester, which thus the possible jury -Members conveyed their message.

More pre-trial activities

At a hearing on January 21, 1873 before the "US District Court" in Albany , the capital of New York State, Selden presented a nuanced argument in support of Anthony in her case. He said the issue of women's right to vote has not been fully assessed by the judiciary and the government has no basis to treat Anthony as a criminal as a result. Judge Nathan K. Hall did not give US Attorney Richard Crowley an opportunity to express the government's point of view and decided that Anthony should remain in custody.

Anthony published Selden's arguments before this court as a pamphlet and distributed 3,000 copies. She sent some to newspaper publishers in several countries for publication. In the cover letter to the editor of the Rochester Evening Express , she asked for help in convincing people that voting was not a crime. She said it: "We must get the men of Rochester so enlightened did no jury of twelve can be found to convict us." (German: We need the people of Rochester enlighten so that no jury can be found from twelve to us condemned. )

The location of Anthony's trial: Ontario County Courthouse, Canandaigua, NY

On January 24th, Crowley presented the charges to the Albany District Court grand jury , which admitted the indictment against the voters. Anthony again pleaded not guilty and was given $ 1,000 bail. Selden provided this deposit despite her protest.

At the indictment reading on May 22nd, Crowley moved the case to be moved from the District Court to the US Circuit Court of the northern borough of New York, which had competing jurisdiction. One session of this Circuit Court was to be held in June in Canandaigua , the capital of Ontario County , which borders Monroe County . It has given no justification for this request, but observers believed firmly that the judge Ward Hunt of the Supreme Court that "Circuit" had been assigned and was available in June for the management of this process. The "Federal Circuit Courts" often postponed important cases until the arrival of a commissioned " Supreme Federal Judge " who, with his involvement, was supposed to give the judgment greater weight.

The move also meant that the jurors were not selected in Monroe County, which Anthony had covered with her previous speaking tour on women's suffrage. Anthony responded by giving a speech in each Ontario County ward before the trial began.

The process

The case was complicated in several ways. Anthony was charged with breaking a state law that gave women no choice. But she was not tried in a state court. Instead, she was tried in federal court for violating the Enforcement Act of 1870, which made participation in congressional elections a "federal crime" if the voter was not eligible to vote under state law.

Justice Ward Hunt

Federal Judge Ward Hunt, who had recently been appointed to the Supreme Court, was responsible for this "circuit" and was serving as judge in this case. He had never been a judge in a trial. Originally a politician, he began his legal career by being elected to the New York Court of Appeals.

The United States v. Susan B. Anthony began in Canandaigua on June 17, 1873 and has been closely followed by the national press. People thought they saw comic aspects of a farce in him and the press was eager for more. The New York Times reported: “It was conceded that the defendant was, on the 5th November, 1872, a woman.” (German: The admission was made that on 5th November 1872 the defendant was a woman .)

Federal Judge Hunt was the sole chairman, which was not common practice. Federal criminal cases usually had two judges at the time. And a case couldn't go to the Supreme Court unless there was a disagreement between those judges. District judge Nathan K. Hall, who had previously dealt with the case, was among the audience in the court.

Legal reasoning

As a defense attorney, Selden argued that the first section of the 14th Amendment clearly stated that women were citizens and that the states were forbidden from using laws to impair the "privileges and immunities of citizens". That is why women are the owners of all civil rights, including the right to vote, the right that gives importance to other political rights. He gave examples of injustice suffered by women in many cultures around the world, in part as a result of their voicelessness in politics. He said Anthony voted in the firm belief that it was their legal right and could not be charged with knowingly breaking any law.

On behalf of the prosecution, Crowley said that the "privileges and immunities" protected by the 14th Amendment related only to rights such as life, liberty and property, not the right to vote. He said children were citizens but no one would ask for the right to vote. He cited recent state and national court rulings affirming the right of states to restrict the right to vote to men. He pointed out that the second section of the 14th Amendment dealt exclusively with male voters when it threatened states that restricted male suffrage with a reduction in representation in Congress.

Anthony asked through her lawyer for permission to testify on his own behalf. Hunt denied her that option. In doing so, he was following a rule of common law that at the time precluded criminal defendants from being allowed to testify in federal courts.

Directed judgment

After both sides presented their case on the second day of the trial, Federal Judge Hunt presented his written opinion. He said he had written it before, to make sure there was no misunderstanding of his views ("there would be no misapprehension about my views "). He said the constitution allows states to deny women the right to vote and that Anthony was guilty in that regard of breaking New York state law. He cited some of the Supreme Court rulings that had narrowly defined national civil rights just a few weeks earlier. He also said the right to be judged by a jury only exists in a controversial case and not when it comes to a legal issue. Hunt ruled that in the most controversial aspect of the case, the defense had admitted the facts and he directed the jury to pronounce a guilty verdict. He denied Selden's request that the jury vote to give their opinion on the verdict.

These motions were contrary because the 6th Amendment begins with the words: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury". (German: In all criminal offenses, the accused should have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. )

After the trial, Anthony believed with conviction that Hunt had written his verdict before the trial began. Van Voorhis, a lawyer who had helped Anthony, agreed, saying Hunt had unquestionably prepared his judgment beforehand.

Anthony's speech in court

On the third and final day of the trial, Hunt asked Anthony, following the normal process routine, if she had anything to say. She responded, according to Ann D. Gordon, a historian of the women's movement, with the most famous speech in the history of propaganda for women suffrage ("the most famous speech in the history of the agitation for woman suffrage").

She ignored repeated the judge's instructions to remain silent and to sit down and she complained - as she put it - "this high-handed outrage upon my citizen's rights" (German: this high-level outrage about my civil rights ) and went on to say: "you have trampled under foot every vital principle of our government. My natural rights, my civil rights, my political rights, my judicial rights, are all alike ignored. ”(German: You have trampled on every essential principle of our system of government. My natural rights, my civil rights, my political rights, mine Rights in court, all equally disregarded. )

She scourged federal judge Hunt for denying her a jury verdict. She also stated that even if he had allowed the jury to discuss the case, she would still have been denied her right to a trial with a jury of her own kind because women were not allowed to be jurors. She said that women should follow the example of slaves who have achieved freedom in a variety of ways, including illegal ones. To get a voice in the state, they would have to raise that voice, as it has done, and as it intends to do it again at every possible opportunity.

Blocked path to the Supreme Court

When federal judge Hunt imposed a fine of $ 100 on Anthony, she replied, "I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty" (German: I will never pay a dollar of this unjust penalty. ). And she never did. If Hunt ordered her to be locked up until she paid the fine, Anthony could have filed a habeas corpus complaint for a Supreme Court hearing. Hunt instead announced that he would not make an order to take her into custody. So he prevented this legal procedural possibility. Because appeals to the Supreme Court were not allowed in criminal trials at the time, Anthony was prevented from having her case examined.

Attempt to collect the fine

A month after the trial, a "Deputy Federal Marshal" was hired to collect the fine from Anthony. He reported that a careful search had failed to find any property that could have been used to pay the fine. The court took no further action.

Press reports

Caricature by Susan B. Anthony in the Daily Graphic shortly before her trial

The Associated Press provided daily reports of the trial, printed in newspapers across the United States. In some cases, newspapers filled several columns with the arguments put forward by the lawyers and the judge's decision. Some newspapers harshly criticized female voters. The Rochester Union and Advertiser wrote that her behavior "goes to show the progress of female lawlessness instead of the principle of female suffrage" (German: is out to show the progress of female lawlessness instead of the principle of women's suffrage ) and she wrote that "the efforts of Susan B. Anthony & Co. to unsex themselves and vote as men will be so far as they are successful both criminal and ridiculous." (German: the efforts of Susan B. Anthony to deny their gender and to choose as a man, insofar as they are successful, will be both criminal and ridiculous. )

The main point of interest was Federal Judge Hunt's refusal to allow the jury to meet and vote on the verdict. The New York Sun called for Hunt's impeachment on the grounds that he had overturned civil liberty.

Shortly before the trial, published New York Daily Graphic a full-page caricature of Anthony on its front page with the subtitle "The Woman Who Dared" (German: The woman who dared ). She portrayed Anthony with a grim expression and in man's boots with spurs. In the background were a woman in a police uniform and men carrying shopping and small children. The accompanying story said that if Anthony were acquitted in the process, the world would gradually resemble the cartoon. The women would "acknowledge in the person of Miss Anthony the pioneer who first pursued the way they sought." (German: would recognize the pioneer in the person of Miss Anthony, who would have first taken the path they had been looking for. )

aftermath

Petition to waive the fine

In January 1874, Anthony petitioned Congress for her fine to be waived on the grounds that Federal Judge Hunt's verdict was unfair. The Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and the House of Representatives debated this issue. Senator Matthew Carpenter condemned Hunt's decision, stating: [It was] altogether a departure from, and a most dangerous innovation upon, the well-settled method of jury-trial in criminal cases. Such a doctrine renders the trial by jury a farce. [Anthony] had no jury-trial, within the meaning of the Constitution, and her conviction was, therefore, erroneous. "(German: [It is] altogether a deviation from and a dangerous innovation with regard to the well-established method of the jury process in Criminal cases. Such a view makes the trial with a jury a farce. [Anthony] had no jury trial within the meaning of the constitution and her conviction was therefore erroneous.) Benjamin Butler introduced a bill to repeal Anthony's penance in the House of Representatives, but this did not go through.

Effect on the women's movement

The Susan B. Anthony trial helped make women's suffrage a national issue. It was a major step in transforming the women's suffrage movement, which encompassed a wide variety of concerns, into a movement primarily focused on the right to vote.

The National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) continued to pursue the new departure strategy even though Anthony had been blocked in its attempt to take her suffrage case to the Supreme Court. Virginia Minor, one of the inventors of the new departure strategy, succeeded in this regard. When Minor was denied registration as a voter in Missouri in 1872, she took her case first to state court, then to the Missouri Supreme Court, and then to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately for the women's suffrage movement, the Supreme Court ruled in Minor v Happersett that the Constitution did not inherently support women's suffrage, stating, "The Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone ". (German: The constitution of the United States does not grant anyone the right to vote. )

The decision in the Happersett case put an end to the new departure strategy: no more attempts to win women's suffrage through the courts. The NWSA chose to pursue the far more difficult strategy of campaigning for an amendment (amendment) to the United States Constitution that would secure the right to vote for women. That struggle lasted 45 years until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1928 . Supreme Court rulings did not establish the relationship between civil rights and voting rights until the mid-20th century.

Ongoing debate about guided judgment

Controversy within the legal community over the directed judgment of Federal Judge Hunt continued for years. In 1882 - a month after Federal Judge Hunt left the Supreme Court - a circuit court judge ruled that it was a mistake for a judge to order a jury to deliver a guilty verdict. In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in the “Sparf v. United States "that a federal judge cannot order a jury to deliver a guilty verdict in a criminal case.

Other effects

In April 1874, Anthony published a book of more than 200 pages entitled: An Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony, on the Charge of Illegal Voting, at the Presidential Election in Nov., 1872, and on the Trial of Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall, the Inspectors of Election by Whom Her Vote was Received.

It contained the documents from the trial, including the indictments, her speech to potential jurors, the attorneys' arguments and pleadings, the trial transcripts, and the judge's decision. It did not include US Attorney Crowley's arguments for refusing to release them. Instead, Crowley published his own pamphlet containing his arguments along with the federal judge's decision. Anthony's book also included an essay written by Connecticut's Supreme Court of Errors reporter John Hooker after the trial. In it he said that Hunt's actions were against all rules of law and were harmful to the system of jury trials in criminal cases ("contrary to all rules of law" and "subversive of the system of jury trials in criminal cases.")

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Gordon, (2005), p. 7
  2. ^ Wellman, 2004, pp. 193, 195, 203
  3. ↑ DuBois, 1978, p. 41
  4. ↑ DuBois, 1998, pp. 119-120. It had not always been illegal for women to vote in New Jersey, as the 1776 Constitution allowed all adult residents, male or female, who owned a particular property to vote. In 1807 a law denied women in New Jersey their right to vote. See: Wellman, 2004, p. 138
  5. ↑ DuBois, 1998, p. 100
  6. ↑ DuBois, 1998, p. 120
  7. ↑ DuBois, 1998, p. 119
  8. ^ Gordon, 2000, p. 526, footnote 4
  9. ↑ Rowland Cox (Ed.): The American Law Times . The American Law Times Association (1871), Volume 4, pp. 199-200
  10. ↑ Barry, 1988, p. 153
  11. ↑ Venet, 1991, p. 148
  12. ↑ Anthony was the most famous advocate of women's suffrage according to Gordon, 2005, p. 1. Ann D. Gordon is the editor of the six-volume work Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony . Similarly, Ellen Carol DuBois, a historian of women's suffrage, said that at the time Anthony was the nation's most famous women's rights suffragist, according to DuBois, 1998, p. 129
  13. ↑ Quoted in Barry, 1988, p. 250
  14. ↑ Gordon, 2005, p. 39, p. 33
  15. ↑ Quoted in Barry, 1988, p. 250
  16. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 7, pp. 1-2, 29-30
  17. ^ Gordon, 2005, pp. 8, pp. 2, 61
  18. ↑ Gordon, 2000, pp. 531-533, footnote 1
  19. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 34, pp. 28-29
  20. ↑ Gordon, 2005, p. 36, pp. 30-31
  21. ↑ Gordon, 2005, p. 17, pp. 11-12
  22. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 10, pp. 4, 12, 37
  23. ↑ For the full discussion, see Volume 2 of the History of Woman Suffrage , pp. 630–647
  24. ↑ Gordon, 2005, p. 10, p. 4
  25. ↑ Gordon, 2005, p. 10, p. 34
  26. ^ Letter from Susan B. Anthony dated January 24, 1873 published on the Web by the University of Rochester Library. Retrieved January 7, 2018
  27. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 5
  28. ↑ Barry, 1988, pp. 252/253
  29. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 68
  30. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 6
  31. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 39
  32. ^ Hull, 2012, pp. 115-116, 158
  33. ↑ New York Times, June 18, 1873: The Trial of Miss Susan B. Anthony for Illegal Voting — The Testimony and the Arguments . See [1]
  34. ^ Gordon, 2005, pp. 9-10, 26
  35. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 41-43
  36. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 44-45. Commenting on the fact that the wording of the 14th Amendment could be used for such conflicting purposes, historian Carol DuBois said that "the universalities of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, where federal citizenship is established, run headlong into the sex-based restrictions of the second section, where voting rights are limited. "(German: the general validity of the first section of the 14th Amendment, through which citizenship would be established, plunged headlong into the gender-based restrictions of the second section, in which Voting rights would be curtailed. ) See DuBois, 1998, p. 117
  37. ^ Gordon, 2005, pp. 5, 13
  38. ^ Justice Ward Hunt: Instruction to the Jury by the Court in the Case of United States vs Susan B. Anthony , June 19, 1873 found in the "Famous Trials web site By Professor Douglas O. Linder". Retrieved January 5, 2018. The text of Hunt's instruction to the jury can also be found in Stanton, Anthony, Gage (1887), beginning on p. 675. page 675
  39. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 6-7, 15-17, 48-50
  40. ↑ Harper, 1898-1908, Vol. 1, pp. 444, 441
  41. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 7, 45-47
  42. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 46-47
  43. ↑ Gordon, 2005, pp. 7, 46-47
  44. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 47
  45. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 18
  46. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 7
  47. ↑ Quoted in Gordon, 2005, pp. 35-36
  48. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 36
  49. ↑ The Woman Who Dared . In: New York Daily Graphic , June 5, 1873, p. 1.  Quoted in Gordon (2005), p. 33
  50. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 8
  51. ^ Gordon, 2005, p. 8
  52. ↑ Hewitt, 2001, p. 212
  53. ^ Gordon, 2005, pp. 18-20
  54. ^ Gordon, 2005, pp. 18-20
  55. ^ Gordon, 2005, pp. 18-20
  56. ↑ Gordon (2005), pp. 34-36

literature

  • Susan B. Anthony, (Ed.) (1874), An account of the proceedings on the trial of Susan B. Anthony on the charge of illegal voting at the Presidential election in Nov., 1872, and on the trial of Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh and William B. Hall, the inspectors of elections by whom her vote was received , Daily Democrat and Chronicle Book Print (1874), Rochester, New York. The author of this 212-page book is not named within the book itself, but Ann D. Gordon says that Anthony collected these documents and arranged them for publication. See Gordon, 2005, p. 34.
  • Kathleen Barry, (1988): Susan B. Anthony: A Biography of a Singular Feminist . New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-36549-6 .
  • Ellen Carol DuBois, (1978): Feminism and Suffrage: The Emergence of an Independent Women's Movement in America, 1848–1869. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8641-6
  • Ellen Carol DuBois, (1998): Woman Suffrage and Women's Rights . New York: New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-1901-5
  • Ann D. Gordon, (Eds.), (2000): The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony: Against an aristocracy of sex, 1866 to 1873 . Volume 2 of 6. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-2318-4
  • Ann D. Gordon, (Eds.), (2003): The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony: National protection for national citizens, 1873 to 1880 . Volume 3 of 6. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-2319-2
  • Ann D. Gordon: The Trial of Susan B. Anthony . Federal Judicial Center 2005, accessed January 23, 2018
  • Nancy A. Hewitt, (2001): Women's Activism and Social Change: Rochester, New York, 1822-1872 . Lexington Books, Lanham, Maryland. ISBN 0-7391-0297-4
  • NEH Hull, (2012): The Woman Who Dared to Vote: The Trial of Susan B. Anthony . University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0700618491
  • Kathi Kern and Linda Levstik, (2012): Teaching the New Departure: The United States vs. Susan B. Anthony . In: The Journal of the Civil War Era , Volume 2, No. 1, pp. 127-141.
  • Stanton, Elizabeth Cady; Anthony, Susan B .; Gage, Matilda Joslyn (1887): History of Woman Suffrage , Volume 2, Rochester, NY: Susan B. Anthony (Charles Mann Drucker). Pages 627–715 of this book provide a detailed account of the trial from the perspective of Anthony and her allies.
  • Wendy Hamand Venet, (1991): Neither Ballots nor Bullets: Women Abolitionists and the Civil War . Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia. ISBN 978-0813913421
  • Judith Wellman, (2004): The Road to Seneca Falls: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the First Women's Rights Convention . University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-02904-6

Web links

  • "Susan B. Anthony Criminal Case File" at the US National Archives. Click on "item (s) described in the catalog" to see scans of the transcripts of the indictment, record of conviction, etc.