Frederick Douglass and the black abolitionist leaders at the time did the same thing to women with the passage of the 15th amendment.

I’m not saying that payback is okay, that is even what’s going on here, or that tit for tat is a good way to go.

I’m suggesting there is an inherent hypocrisy in this argument and I hear it a lot. Why was it okay for black men but not okay for white women? Why is it not okay for white women but okay for black women?

Perhaps the sequence of events is less about “throwing some other group under the bus" and more about being forced into a corner and having to make a hard choice. Black men had the choice to accept terms to gain the right to vote at the expense of women. They did so.

That kind of set a precedent. White women had to choose to accept the same set of terms at the expense of black women Indigenous people, and others. They did so.

I think the real tragedy here is that as each group was lifted over the edge, they did not reach back for others. Black men did not stand for women. White women did not stand for black women. Black women did not stand for Indigenous people/(women). Native American men could vote if they gave up their tribal affiliation. And on down the line.

Nobody is better or more moral than another group. We have all failed those who came after. We all want help to reach our goals. We criticize the humanity of others in power to elicit that help. We’re a lot less willing to pay it forward when we have the ability and the political power to do so. And that seems universal.

It’s also a disingenuous argument because we’re talking about federal legislation. Voting rights history has been extremely messy though, with a fair amount of back and forth, under the complete jurisdiction on the states. There were States that granted universal suffrage to women regardless of race very early on. So, your argument is not universally true. It is only true on a federal level.