So the result was that as one approached a political convention for most of the 19th century and for most of the 20th century until the 1960’s, part of the drama was the fact that you didn’t know ultimately who was going to be the nominee at the end of that convention week.
Most of the well-known American feminists of the 19th century did not come out against the institution of marriage.
I grew up reading 19th-century novels and late Victorian children’s books, so I try for a good story full of coincidence and error, landscape and weather. However, the world was radically changed during my lifetime, and I tell of that battering as best I can.
During the 19th-century struggle for women’s rights in America, many saw a competition between rights for black people and those for women.
It’s an irony that growing inequality could mean more money for philanthropy. In the U.S., quite a few of the ultra-rich have taken to heart the 19th century industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie’s comment that it’s a disgrace to die wealthy.
Here’s what I don’t think works: An economic system that was founded in the 16th century and another that was founded in the 19th century. I’m tired of this discussion of capitalism and socialism; we live in the 21st century; we need an economic system that has democracy as its underpinnings and an ethical code.
The Indian education system, like the Indian bureaucratic system, is Victorian and still in the 19th century. Our schools are still designed to produce clerks for an empire that does not exist anymore.
One layer was certainly 17th century. The 18th century in him is obvious. There was the 19th century, and a large slice, of course, of the 20th century; and another, curious layer which may possibly have been the 21st.