In December Miss Anthony went to the Dansville Sanitarium for a few days and after her return, Dr. Kate Jackson, so widely known and loved, wrote her:  “Since your visit here, through which I obtained somewhat of an insight into your struggles and labors, I have been in special sympathy with you.  I do admire the liberal and comprehensive spirit which you and Mrs. Stanton show in allowing both sides of a question to be fairly discussed in your paper, and in giving any woman who does good work for her race in any field the credit for it, even though she may not exactly agree with you on all points.  The spirit of exclusiveness is not calculated to push any reform among the masses....  Our house and hearts are always open to you.  I want to send you something more than good wishes and so enclose a little New Year’s gift to you, with my love and earnest prayers for your success.”

The lovely Quaker, Sarah Pugh, wrote from Philadelphia: 

Dear Susan:  Not “Dear Madam,” or “Respected Friend,” according to our stately fashion, for my heart yearns too warmly toward thee and thy work for such formality.  Would it were in my power to help thee more in thy onward way, for it must be onward even though opponents fill it with stumbling-blocks.  Lucretia Mott is firm in her adherence to New York—­not but that she can work, if the way offers, in all organizations which labor for the same end.  My opinion of The Revolution may be expressed in what was said of another paper:  “It fights no sham battles with enemies already defeated.  It is true, good men and women not a few stumble at it, object to it and in some cases antagonize it, but nobody despises it.  An affectation of contempt is not contempt.”

Scores of similar letters were received from the early workers in the cause.  It is unnecessary to enter further into a discussion of this division in the ranks of the advocates of woman suffrage.  The conscientious historian must perform some unpleasant duties, hence it could not be passed without notice.  The mass of correspondence on this question has been carefully sifted and that which would give pain to others, even though it would magnify the subject of this work, has been rigorously excluded.  Most of the writers and those whom they criticised have ended their labors and passed from the scene of action.  No good can be accomplished, either to the individuals or to the reform, by inflicting these personalities upon future generations.  Among earnest, forceful, aggressive leaders of any great movement, there must arise controversies because of these strong characteristics, but the chief interest of mankind lies not in the individuals but in the results which they were able to accomplish.  A comparison of the position of woman today with that which she occupied at the beginning of the agitation in her behalf, fifty years ago, offers more eloquent testimony to the efforts of those heroic pioneers than could be put into words by the most gifted pen.