Source Z When the great suffrage parade was held in Washington last month, the organizers asked our delegation to march at the rear of the procession rather...

This question asks how reliable a speech by an African American women's rights activist (Chicago, 1913) is as evidence about divisions within the women's suffrage movement. The source describes the incident at the 1913 Washington suffrage parade where Black women were asked to march at the rear.

What the source tells us: The speaker describes being asked to march "at the rear of the procession rather than with our state" because organisers feared Southern white women would refuse to participate alongside Black women. She reports that her delegation marched anyway, joining the Illinois group "despite the protests." She criticises the movement for demanding equality for women while practising racial inequality, arguing that "the ballot must belong to all women, not merely to white women."

How far the source is reliable:

• The incident described is well documented. The 1913 Washington suffrage parade, organised by Alice Paul and the Congressional Union, did instruct Black women's delegations to march separately to avoid alienating Southern supporters.
• Ida B. Wells-Barnett famously refused to comply and joined the Illinois delegation - the speech appears to describe this very incident or a similar act of defiance.
• The broader racial division the speaker identifies was real and deeply rooted. Since the 1860s split between the NWSA and AWSA, some white suffragists had used racist arguments. Some Southern suffragists explicitly argued that white women's votes would maintain white supremacy.
• The speaker's argument that suffrage must be universal is historically consistent with the position of African American suffragists, who drew explicit parallels between the Fifteenth Amendment and their demand for a women's suffrage amendment.

Limitations of the source:

• As an activist speaking at a suffrage meeting, the speaker has a clear purpose: to build support for universal suffrage and to shame the movement into addressing its racism. This does not make her facts wrong, but it shapes how she presents them.
• The source presents a binary picture (racist white organisers versus principled Black suffragists) that may oversimplify the range of views within both groups.
• Not all white suffragists agreed with the decision to segregate the parade - the source does not acknowledge those who opposed the policy internally.

How to reach the highest marks:

• Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple statement, such as "it is reliable because she experienced discrimination."
• Level 2 (3-5 marks): Uses source details about the parade incident, the racial criticism, and the call for universal suffrage.
• Level 3 (6-7 marks): Critical evaluation that recognises the source as valuable evidence of a well-documented and significant division within the movement. A top answer would note that the source's claims are confirmed by independent historical evidence, making it reliable on the specific incident, while its activist purpose means it presents the division in the starkest possible terms. The source is particularly valuable because it comes from a participant who experienced the contradiction firsthand.