Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I do not want to start any kind of discussion about current politics. I would, however, love to find out the political party Lizzie favored, if any. How about Andrew? Did he favor one political party over another? What were the popular political parties in the 1890s? Who were the presidents in Lizzie's lifetime? I am ashamed to say that I do not even remember when women were granted the right to vote. No history major here! I do not have time to do the research myself. I am sure someone who loves politics and Lizzie has the answers. Thank you in advance for your answers.

I don't know if any of us likes to do research, but it's a necessary part of combing this case.

I had posted all the Presidents in Lizzie's lifetime on the Forum earlier. A simple search should pull it up for you. Click on my user name, then click on 'find all posts'.

If that does not bring it up, then a simple search of the Archives should. But I don't think the post has been archived yet.

Good luck, Joe.

Not sure what politcal party she belonged to, but she was invovled with the womens right to vote movement and the temperance movement.

Message deleted by Augusta.

Who were "some of her best friends" alluded to here please may I ask?

I haven't seen that Lizzie was involved in *Women's Rights* or voting issues. I also think she had a falling out with the WCTU as evidenced by the Fall River chapter leaving their rent-controlled space in the A.J. Borden Building after Lizzie's acquittal. See Rebello pages 293-3. She fell out of favour with them, apparently, after they supported her during her time in jail.

If Mrs. Livermore is *the friend* (singular), who was a suffragette, who is considered Lizzie's friend, it's my opinion that Lizzie was her *friend*- but she was not Lizzie's, if that makes sense.

Message deleted by Augusta.

It seemed important because we were discussing if Lizzie had any friends after her acquittal. And the whole 1913 thing about Emma's interview, and Gertrude Stevenson's assertion that Lizzie was friendless and Pearson's pointing out that Stevenson may be right about 1913, but not in his knowledge of Lizzie in 1927. It's all part of the same discussion we've been having. Then now there are un-sourced assertions that Lizzie had friends in suffragettes (plural). That denotes that Lizzie was actively (or even *just*) political, which is the subject of this thread. I only think she was not, and would need to see something that showed she was.

BTW: I found the source for the MacFarland story out of "Adam's bookstore" that Lizzie "did a great deal of charitable work in a fine, quiet way," and that she "bought hundreds of books from him...to give to poor people" in The Sourcebook, page 334, which seems to be from The New Bedford Evening Standard, of June 3, 1927, not that Kent deigned to identify it thusly.
Not all the articles in there are complete, nor dated nor named- altho the Standard is considered a pretty good source.

It may be possible Lizzie had no interest in politics. If she had made any commitment to one party or another, it seems likely she would have made donations, especially in her will. Some people just are not interested in politics. Lizzie had her own passions like caring for unfortunate animals. Thanks for your responses everyone. I sure would love to find out if Lizzie voted. Wouldn't there be documentation somewhere if she had been a registered voter in her day?

Poll/voting lists are available for certain states at ancestry.com, but I'm not sure how extensive the collection is. If you can get to it, the link is at http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/a ... ticle=9920

From what I see there though, women in the Commonwealth didn't get the vote until 1920 just like every other state.

Kat - I know and appreciate your/the Forum's need for sources. I have read so much on Lizzie, as many of us here have. An interesting tidbit will be remembered, but the source for it long gone and practically impossible to track down again.

I post a source when I can. If I knew where to begin to look for this one, I would have already posted it.

Without a source cited, I think that the post loses its credibility. I cannot back up what I said, and persons reading here - especially regular readers or posters - saw no source to lend really any credence to what I posted.

Prior posts deleted. I posted a thought I had remembered about Lizzie, but there is no way I could go back and find the source for it. Citing sources, I believe, is extremely important. Many, many thanks to Kat for her work tracking down and typing up sources!

Augusta, I think posting a source is very important to lend credabilty to what you are stating but if that source is unkown just say so in your post and state it is your opinion also that way you don't have to be afraid to post or have to edit/remove your posts. What you have to say is very important and I for one appreciate anyones opinions and theories on the case as well as posted sources.

Well said, SteveS. But this one needed to go. I am a fairly bubbly person; enthusiastic when involved in something. I posted something about Lizzie I had come across in my studies, but cannot pinpoint where. I also was quite definite about it - "Well, she certainly (did this)...." I believed my source(s) were true. But I didn't have a source to cite right then.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I should not have been definite and should have put it more in the opinion category. I agree - everyone's comments and opinions are good to share. That's a big part of what this Forum is all about. And because of the source citing on here, I think it's the best Forum on Lizzie - an excellent website all together. If I wanted to say what I said so definitely, I needed to follow it up with a source. Ennyway, I've learned a good lesson on this thread. And maybe it's helped others too.

I would just hate to see someone remove or not even post because of a lack of a source. Say what you have to say and then just say "in my opinion". I value everyone on here and YES that's why it's the best forum.

Should I or shouldn't I? Gee, even my hair-dresser doesn't know for sure ...

I think I inadvertently made this into a bigger thing than it was - the post, not the source-citing.

Okay. With no source to back me up, in my opinion, I think that a few of Lizzie's friends post -1893 were women suffragettes.

When you edit to remove your posts, I feel like the bad guy. But we were only having a discussion- and were learning from each other at the same time.

When I question someone it's not intended to back them against a wall- it's hopefully to elicit some good source for what is being presented here. So sources are important when making statements. But not having a source handy should not be a reason not to post. But if a source is asked for- it definitely should be made available.
I often do not post a reply because I can't back it up. Or if I do post it, I ask others to help me. Chances are someone here can help find the source.

So again, for this question as to Lizzie's friends, after the trial, being suffragettes, can anyone help back this up for this topic? Have they read this before? Are these friends in her will?
It doesn't mean I don't believe you- it only (still) needs a bit of proof.