| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 106.5

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 213 words from this article are provided below; about 528 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 106.5 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Europe: Early Modern and Modern

Martin Pugh. The March of the Women: A Revisionist Analysis of the Campaign for Women's Suffrage, 1866–1914. New York: Oxford University Press. 2000. Pp. xi, 303. $35.00.

This is a difficult book to review, primarily because its intended audience is altogether unclear. It seems a curious hybrid: on the one hand, the footnotes are composed largely of references to primary sources, suggesting a monograph. On the other hand, it contains little that is new to specialists in the field, and draws on no substantial fresh body of evidence. Nor does this self-declared "revisionist analysis" work well as a teaching text, for it fails to summarize the existing extensive revisionist literature on the history of the suffrage movement; indeed, it makes only glancing acknowledgments of that literature. Its claim to be the only recent "attempt to assess the entire campaign to secure the parliamentary vote for women" (p. 1) is not entirely accurate, either, for its coverage effectively stops in 1918. The final granting of equal enfranchisement to women in 1928, and the campaigns that intervened, are dismissed in a single final sentence. In sum, Martin Pugh's account is convincing only in the area he knows best: the party political context of the campaigns. . . .

There are about 528 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.