2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
→ More Facts On File Databases
Hello ! | REGISTER / LOGIN
Subject Index
Era Index
Search
Advanced Search
Filed Under: Immigration • Women and Gender • 1900-1928: Progressivism and the Emergence of Modern America
Cable Act (1922)
Congress Establishes Independent Citizenship for Married Women
Full Article
The Issue
The Issue
Print
Background
Email
Case For
Save To Folder
Case Against
Citation
Conclusion
Increase Text
Bibliography
Decrease Text
Timeline
Read Aloud
Primary Sources
Learn More About
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division (reproduction number LC-DIG-ggbain-24188)
The issue: In 1922, Congress approved the Cable Act, which allowed
American women who married foreign men to retain their American
citizenship. The law effectively overturned a 1907 law that had stripped
such women of their American citizenship. Was the Cable Act an
important step in the women's rights movement? Or did it wrongly
overturn long-held legal precedent?
Arguments in favor of the Cable Act: With the increasing
independence for women achieved by the women's rights
movement, the 1907 act linking women's citizenship to that of
their husbands is out of step with the times and should be
repealed. The 1907 act is particularly objectionable in light of
victories in the hard-fought battle for women's right to vote. Just
as states are granting women the vote, the law is taking away
that right from many Americans simply for marrying foreigners.
Arguments against the Cable Act: U.S. legal tradition has long
linked the standing of American women to their husbands; the
Cable Act is thus a break with precedent. Furthermore, in many
foreign countries, women's citizenship also follows that of the
husband, so if American women are allowed to retain their
citizenship after marrying noncitizens, it will create a class of
women with dual nationality. And if women are claimed as citizens
by two countries, it will raise several legal problems.
Background
Through much of U.S. history, a married woman took on her husband's legal identity.
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
1/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
Among other things, the husband gained control over his wife's wages and property
and her right to sue and make contracts; she was essentially legally dependent on
him. That was also the case when it came to citizenship. As a result of laws in place by
the early 20th century, women in the U.S took on the citizenship of the men they
married. Therefore, foreign women who married American men automatically became
U.S. citizens, while American woman who married foreigners lost their American
citizenship. That changed with the passage of the Cable Act in 1922, which made
married women's citizenship independent of their husbands'.
Foreign women who married American man gained U.S. citizenship under a law
passed in 1855. However, the law did not mention American women, leaving room for
debate over whether it applied to them as well. If the citizenship status of a foreign
woman depended on that of her husband, did the same not apply to American women
as well, some asked. The courts interpreted the law differently, creating uncertainty.
Congress resolved that debate in 1907 with the passage of the Expatriation Act, which
declared that the citizenship of American women did indeed depend on their
husbands'. An American woman who married a foreign man would lose her nationality
in favor of his, although she could regain it if he became a naturalized American
citizen. She would then be considered a naturalized citizen, just like him.
Women's rights supporters criticized the 1907 law. They pointed out that women were
making progress in numerous areas: for instance, gaining the right to enter the same
careers as men, gaining increased property rights, and gradually achieving the right
to vote. Women were becoming increasingly independent, they said, and the law
making married women's citizenship dependent on men was outdated. Opposition to
the Expatriation Act increased during World War I (1914-18). With the war, hundreds
of women born in the U.S. and raised to be patriotic U.S. citizens were suddenly
considered "enemy aliens" simply because they were married to men from countries
the U.S. was fighting in the war. As enemy aliens, the women lost millions in property,
which many people saw as unfair.
The growing success of the woman suffrage movement increased the momentum for
the repeal of the 1907 act. After a decades-long battle, states were finally granting
women the right to vote and in 1919 Congress passed a constitutional amendment
guaranteeing the right to vote. However, American women who lost their citizenship
through marriage also lost that hard-won right to vote. As the stakes in the loss of
citizenship mounted, more and more people began calling for independent citizenship
for women. [See Woman Suffrage]
Amid the increasing criticism of the 1907 act, Congress began considering measures
that would overturn it and make women's citizenship status independent of their
husbands'. Congress finally succeeded in doing so in 1922, with the passage of the
Cable Act, also known as the Married Women's Act, the Married Women's
Independent Citizenship Act and the Married Women's Independent Nationality Act.
Under the Cable Act, American women would no longer automatically lose their
citizenship by marrying foreign men, while foreign women would not automatically be
granted citizenship simply for marrying an American man.
However, the law was passed only after overcoming stiff opposition. While supporters
argued that it was time for change, many critics objected to overturning longstanding
legal tradition, in which a married women's legal identity depended on her husband's.
Should women's citizenship status depend on men's? Or was it an outdated concept
that it was time to change?
Supporters of the Cable Act contended that with the increasing independence for
women won by the women's rights movement, the Expatriation Act—which linked a
woman's citizenship to that of her husband—was out of step with the times and should
be repealed. The act was particularly objectionable in light of victories in the battle for
the right to vote, Cable Act proponents insisted. Just as states were granting women
the vote, they pointed out, the law was taking away that right from a large class of
Americans simply because they had fallen in love and married noncitizens.
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
2/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
Critics of the Cable Act countered that U.S. law had always linked the standing of
American women to their husbands. The Cable Act was therefore a break with
precedent, they insisted. Opponents also pointed out in many foreign countries, the
citizenship status of married women also followed that of their husbands. Therefore,
they said, if American women were allowed to retain their citizenship after marrying
foreigners, it would create a class of women with dual nationality—American
citizenship as well as the citizenship of her husband's country. And if women were
claimed as citizens by two countries, it would raise several legal problems, critics said.
The Early History of Women's Citizenship
Since colonial days, the status of married women in America was defined by the British
legal principle of "coverture," in which a woman's legal and political identity was
covered by her husband's status. English jurist William Blackstone described that
relationship in 1765:
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the
very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the
marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the
husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs every
thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert, foemina
viro co-operta; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and
influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition upon
marriage is called her coverture.
However, there were no early laws mandating that married women also take the
citizenship of their husbands. That sometimes led to debate over how marriage
affected women's citizenship through the first half of the 19th century.
The Supreme Court weighed in on the question in 1830 in Shanks v. Dupont, a case
considering the property rights of the heirs of an American woman who had married a
British soldier during the American Revolution (1775-83). The court's final decision
hinged on the fact that the woman had left the U.S. to live in Britain after her marriage
and thus voluntarily became a British citizen, according to the court. However, Justice
Joseph Story also stated that a woman did not lose her American citizenship simply for
marrying a foreign man. "[M]arriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy,
produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. It may change her civil
rights, but it does not affect her political rights or privileges," he wrote.
Congress for the first time directly linked women's citizenship status to their husbands'
status with the 1855 Naturalization Act, regarding the citizenship of foreign women who
married American men. The law, signed (by President Franklin Pierce) on February
10, declared, "Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the
United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a
citizen." The law was intended to maintain the unity of the family, preventing the
creation of families that did not share the same nationality. It was also fueled by the
belief that if the wife were an American citizen she would better be able to raise her
husband's children to be good citizens.
The law did not mention American women who married foreign men, sparking debate
over whether it worked the other way as well. Just as foreign wives' citizenship
depended on that of their American husbands, did the citizenship of an American
women who married a foreigners depend on her husband's? Story's view that
marriage did not affect the citizenship status of American women largely prevailed, but
the law was still open to the interpretation of the individual courts.
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
3/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
Men and women wait in line to obtain marriage licenses. Prior to 1922, after
marriage the woman—whether foreign or American-born—gave up her nationality
and took on her husband's.
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division (reproduction number LC-DIG-ggbain-24188)
Expatriation Act Revokes Women's Citizenship on Marriage to
Foreign Men
Congress settled the debate over the status of American women who married
foreigners with the passage of the Expatriation Act, signed on March 2, 1907. Among
other provisions, the law determined that if an American woman married a foreigner
she would revoke her American citizenship and take on her husband's nationality.
With that, she would lose all the rights associated with American citizenship, such as
the right to vote and the protection of the U.S. government when she traveled abroad.
However, if her husband became a naturalized citizen, she would likewise become a
naturalized citizen, and if the marriage ended she could also resume her American
citizenship. [See Expatriation Act (1907) (primary document)]
As with the 1855 law, legislators claimed that the Expatriation Act would maintain the
unity of the family, but many also viewed the new law as a means to deter American
women from marrying noncitizens. The law was passed amid increasing concerns over
immigration. Foreigners were immigrating to the U.S. in record numbers, and the
character of the immigrants was also changing—for the worse, according to many
Americans. "Old" immigrants from Northern European countries, who tended to be
white and Anglo-Saxon, were being replaced by large numbers of "new," lessdesirable immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who tended to be darker
skinned and less educated. Representative Nathan Kendall (R, Iowa) expressed the
view of many when he stated a few years after law passed, "We do not want our girls
to marry foreigners."
In stripping women of the benefits of citizenship, the law was thought to give women a
strong reason to avoid marrying foreign men. At the same time, some also believed
that the law would prevent immigration to the U.S., as men would supposedly be less
likely to travel to the U.S. if they believed they would not be able to find American
wives.
The Supreme Court upheld the expatriation law in 1915 in the case Mackenzie v.
Hare, brought by California resident who lost her American citizenship after marrying a
British citizen. California had granted women the right to vote, and when the woman
attempted to register to vote her application was denied on the grounds that she was
a British citizen. She took her case to court, claiming that she had unwillingly been
stripped of her citizenship in violation of her 14th Amendment right to due process of
law. She took her case to the Supreme Court after the California courts ruled against
her. [See Supreme Court Upholds 1907 Expatriation Act (sidebar); Supreme Court
Decision: Mackenzie v. Hare (primary document)]
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
4/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
Loss of the vote was not the only tangible impact of the 1907 law. During World War I,
hundreds of women born in the U.S. instantly became "enemy aliens" simply because
they were married to men from Germany and other enemy nations. It was widely
believed that the women's allegiance would follow that of their enemy alien husbands.
As enemy aliens, the women were forced to give up a total of $25 million in property,
confiscated by the Alien Property Custodian, fueling criticism of the Expatriation Act.
Growing Calls for Independent Citizenship
Criticism of the 1907 act gained added
urgency with successes in the women's
rights movement. As women gained more
rights, advocates argued that the
citizenship laws were outdated; women
were increasingly independent
individuals, and their citizenship should
not depend on their husbands'. A decade
after the passage of the Expatriation Act,
Representative Jeannette Rankin (R,
Montana) introduced a bill in the House in
May 1917 that would allow American
women married to foreigners maintain
their citizenship. The bill failed, as did
several similar bills introduced the
following years.
Despite the failures in Congress, the
movement for independent citizenship
was gaining momentum along with the
women's suffrage movement. In 1919,
Congress approved a constitutional
amendment that would guarantee women
the right to vote. "What would be the point
of giving women the right to vote, only for
it to be taken away again if a woman
married a foreigner?", supporters of
independent citizenship asked.
In May 1917, Representative Jeannette
Rankin unsuccessfully introduced
legislation that would make a woman's
citizenship independent of her husband's.
Support for independent citizenship soon
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division
spread beyond women's groups, and in
(reproduction number LC-USZ62-8422)
1920, both the Democratic and
Republican Parties adopted the principle
in their party platforms. The Republicans declared, "We advocate, in addition, the
independent naturalization of married women. An American woman, resident in the
United States, should not lose her citizenship by marriage to an alien." Likewise, the
Democrats called for, "Federal legislation which shall insure that American women
resident in the United States, but married to aliens, shall retain their American
citizenship, and that the same process of naturalization shall be required for women
as for men."
Two years later, Congress succeeded in passing an independent citizenship bill. On
June 20, 1922, the House approved a citizenship bill introduced by Representative
John Cable (R, Ohio), and the Senate passed the bill on September 9 without a roll
call vote. President Warren G. Harding (R, 1921-23) signed the bill on September 22.
[See Cable Act (1922) (primary document)]
The Cable Act made married women's citizenship independent of men, both for
American and foreign wives. Among other provisions, Section 3 of the act declared,
"That a woman citizen of the United States shall not cease to be a citizen of the United
States by reason of her marriage after the passage of this Act, unless she makes a
formal renunciation of her citizenship." However, the act maintained a provision that
"any woman citizen who marries an alien ineligible to citizenship shall cease to be a
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
5/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
citizen of the United States." This provision largely applied to U.S. women marrying
Asians, since the Naturalization Act of 1870 limited naturalization to "white persons
and persons of African descent."
The Cable Act's guarantee of retaining citizenship applied to women who married after
its passage in September 1922. However, it also allowed women who had lost their
citizenship by marrying foreigners before passage of the act to regain their American
citizenship by going through the naturalization process.
With regard to foreign wives, the act declared, "That any woman who marries a citizen
of the United States after the passage of this Act, or any woman whose husband is
naturalized after the passage of this Act, shall not become a citizen to the United
States by reason of such marriage or naturalization." The foreign wife, if she were
"eligible to citizenship," would have to go through the process of naturalization to
become an American citizen. The act also declared that women who had gained
citizenship by marrying American men prior to the passage of the Cable Act would not
lose their American citizenship.
The Case in Favor of the Cable Act
Supporters of the Cable Act argued that times had changed; women were increasingly
gaining independence under the women's rights movement and there was no longer
any reason for a woman to take her legal identity from her husband. It was therefore
time to overturn the 1907 Expatriation Act, they insisted. Colorado State Senator
Helen Ring Robinson elaborated in Preparing Women for Citizenship (1918):
This "disability" of the married women under our citizenship laws was
once natural enough. At the time these laws debarring married women
from citizenship rights were passed, married women were almost
universally debarred from property rights, also. In a very real sense they
were barred from a personality—and if a woman hadn't a personality why
should she need citizenship? But to-day, with our statutes recognizing
that woman is no longer a chattel, with a personality allowed her by law,
and in many states a vote, this whole situation, which makes of the
married woman at best a shadow citizen, is resented by all American
women whose minds have come of age.
Therefore, advocates contended, the women's rights movement could not be a
success as long as women were covered by their husband's citizenship status. As
women stood on the verge of winning the right to vote, they spoke of the importance
of obtaining independent citizenship as well. "We who stand to-night so near victory,
after a majestic struggle of seventy long years, must not forget that there are other
steps besides suffrage necessary to complete the political enfranchisement of
American women," Representative Rankin declared in introducing her citizenship bill.
She continued, "We must not forget that the self-respect of American woman will not
be redeemed until she is regarded as a distinct and social entity, unhampered by the
political status of her husband, her father, or her associates; but with a status
peculiarly her own and accruing her as an American woman."
In fact, independent citizenship became even more important with the right to vote,
since American women who lost their citizenship would now have even more to lose,
Cable Act supporters said. The loss of the vote was particularly unacceptable
considering that foreign women who knew nothing of American politics or culture won
that right simply in marrying American men, they said. In welcoming the passage of the
Cable Act, the New York Woman Citizen declared:
More than one woman who had worked hard for the vote found that after
it was won for American women she was still excluded, although she
might never have left her native shore. It only added to the bitterness she
felt against her country for repudiating her, to find that every foreign-born
woman landing in Ellis Island was a citizen if her husband had become
naturalized, and that even French or German bride of a returning soldier,
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
6/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
although she might not speak a word of English and knew nothing about
the country and its government, was a citizen through the bare fact of
marriage.
In addition to taking away the right to vote, Cable Act proponents said, the act also
cost many formerly American women their jobs. They pointed out that many
businesses did not hire foreign citizens. Even if a woman had been a loyal employee
for years, they said, she would quickly be fired upon marrying a foreign man. Author
Jeannette Phillips Gibbs discussed the economic impact of the Expatriation Act in a
February 26, 1922, New York Times article: [See 'Our All-American Aliens' (primary
document)]
It is not merely the ethical value of citizenship which is the casus belli.
These women are affected in their ordinary everyday lives. There was a
woman, for instance, who was brought up in New England. She married a
Scotchman permanently resident in the United States. Money to them
was a serious consideration. The woman's earnings as a school teacher
were needed to make both ends meet. Aliens, however, are not allowed
to teach school in the city where she lived, and, although she had held
the position for several years, she was immediately dismissed…. In a
lower stratum of society she would equally have lost her job as a scrubwoman in a city building if she had married a British porter—even an Irish
one.
Because of all of its negative consequences, the 1907 essentially encouraged
American women not to marry when they fell in love with a foreign man, critics said.
"The law, as it now stands, puts a premium on feminine bachelorhood. A woman may
be a patriotic American, an American born and bred, but if she marries a foreigner
she must lose her American citizenship," New York County Clerk James Donegan
stated in April 1922.
Proponents of the bill also supported the provision that would deny automatic
citizenship to foreign women who married American men. In particular, they objected
that such women gained the right to vote despite their ignorance of American ways.
"Another bad feature of the law is that a foreign-born woman, who does not
understand our language or anything about our country, may come over here, marry
an American and become automatically entitled to vote," Donegan declared.
The Case Against the Cable Act
Critics of the Cable Act pointed out that the married woman's identity had traditionally
depended on that of her husband. Therefore, they said, in granting independent
citizenship the Cable Act would overturn the natural order of society. "The identity of
husband and wife is an ancient principle of our jurisprudence. It was neither accidental
nor arbitrary, and worked in many instances for her protection…. It has purpose, if not
necessity, in purely domestic policy; it has greater purpose, and it may be, necessity,
in international policy," Justice Joseph McKenna wrote in the 1915 Mackenzie
decision.
Many critics of the Cable Act focused on the legal problems posed by the act. In
particular, they pointed out, most countries also had laws that the husband's wives
would take on their nationalities. Therefore, they said, in allowing women to retain
their American citizenship the Cable Act would create a class of women with dual
citizenship. That would create problems over which country's laws applied to such
women, they warned. "If this proposal is enacted into law, conflicts will arise between
the law of the United States and the laws of most foreign countries, under which the
citizenship of a married woman follows that of her husband," State Department legal
adviser Richard Flournoy wrote in Naturalization and Expatriation (1922).
Because of the legal implications of dual citizenship for other countries, Cable critics
contended, Congress did not have the authority to pass the Cable Act. The issue
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
7/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
should instead be settled through foreign treaty instead, they said. According to
former British diplomat Frederick Cunliff-Owen, who had become a resident in the U.S.
and New York Times columnist: [See Cable Naturalization Bill Said to Violate Foreign
Treaties (Excerpt)]
Congress at Washington cannot make the laws of foreign countries,
where naturalization, or indeed any other issues are concerned….. If the
legislation contemplated by the promoters of the movement for the
preservation of United States citizenship by women marrying foreigners is
ever to be brought into existence, it can only be as the result of the
revision of existing treaties, or the negotiation of new agreements of that
nature—negotiations which may or may not be crowned with success.
For, as indicated above, the foreign Governments concerned would have
to inaugurate extensive modifications and revisions of their own domestic
laws in order to put them in a position to accommodate them to the
treaties.
Dual citizenship would also raise issues of the woman's loyalty, particularly during
wartime, critics warned. Being a citizen of two countries, they asked, where would her
loyalties lie? Legal scholar John Maguire discussed that issue in an article in the
American Law Review in 1920:
Just as we have for more than sixty years acted upon the reasonable
hope that the average foreign-born wife of an American would herself be
a loyal citizen, so we must recognize that this country is likely to forfeit
some of American born woman's originality after her foreign marriage. A
woman torn by double allegiance and with her affections pledged to a
man in the enemy camp may easily be a very bad citizen indeed.
The Cable bill would also lead to more American women marrying foreigners, critics
warned, since the loss of citizenship had been the major disincentive for marrying a
foreigner. "Do you not think this bill is an inducement for further American girls to
marry foreigners," asked Representative Harold Knutson (R, Minnesota) in 1918
House hearings on citizenship legislation. He continued, "They lose absolutely nothing
by marrying a foreigner. She becomes 'Countess So-and-so,' and is not an American
citizen; that is not my conception of democracy."
Finally, critics expressed concern that the bill would leave foreign women who married
American men stateless. Since in most countries the wife gave up her nationality in
exchange for her husband's, they said, she would be left without a nationality if she
were not granted the citizenship of her American husband. State Department solicitor
Fred Nielsen elaborated during hearings on the Cable bill before the House
Immigration and Nationalization Committee hearings in June 1922:
[I]t is the law pretty generally throughout the world that the nationality of
the wife follows that of the husband. That may be wrong; that may be an
obsolete principle. But it is worth while considering that this woman who
marries an American will, in view of that fact, lose her foreign citizenship,
and she gains no American citizenship. It is a very serious thing to
legislate so as to make a woman "stateless"….
Nielsen described the practical results of statelessness. For instance, he said, a
British woman who married an American man would lose her British citizenship but not
obtain his American citizenship. As a result, Nielsen said, "she can not, in these later
days, when we have passport restrictions and visa restrictions, travel with her
husband when he goes abroad, because she can not get a passport as an American,
and she can no longer get a passport as a British subject." Furthermore, he said, "If
she does go abroad, she is entitled to the protection of no government anywhere, and
owes allegiance to no nation."
Cable Act Amended over Time
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
8/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
In 1907, Congress approved legislation
revoking the citizenship of American
women who married foreigners. A decade
later, amid increasing pressure by
women's rights advocates, Congress
began debating legislation to overturn the
law. The result was the Cable Act, which
allowed American women who married
foreigners to retain their citizenship.
The bill was passed in 1922 by a wide
margin—206 to 9 in the House. However,
despite the general support for the bill,
many people felt that it was imperfect;
they said that they supported it because a
flawed bill was better than no bill. To try to
correct those flaws, Congress amended
the bill several times in the years after its
passage. For instance, on March 3, 1931,
the bill was amended to remove the
restriction that revoked the citizenship of
American women who married Asian men.
Representative Harold Knutson opposed the
passage of the Cable Act, claiming that it
would encourage American women to
marry foreign men.
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division
(reproduction number LC-DIG-npcc-21179)
Another complaint against the law was that it did not automatically restore citizenship
to American women who had lost theirs because they married foreign men prior to the
passage of the Cable Act in 1922. Instead, they had to go through the naturalization
process, just as immigrants had to do to become American citizens. In his annual
report in 1923, U.S. Commissioner of Naturalization Raymond Crist called on
Congress to amend the Cable Act to make it easier for expatriated women to regain
their American citizenship. He wrote: [See Naturalization Bureau Director of Citizenship
Urges Cable Act Amendment (primary document)]
Some women feel that a certain stigma attaches to the need of
"naturalization" in the same manner as any lowly immigrant. Women of
perhaps Mayflower ancestry, whose forbears fought through the
Revolution, and whose family names bear honored and conspicuous
places in our history, who are thoroughly American at heart, and who
perhaps have never left these shores, but whose act in choosing alien
husbands has caused forfeiture of American citizenship, bemoan the
stipulation that such as they must sue for naturalization by ordinary
means.
Congress partially heeded that appeal in 1936. In July that year, it made citizenship
easier to obtain for American women whose marriages to foreign men prior to 1922
ended either through divorce or the death of their husbands. Instead of having to go
through the naturalization process, those women simply had to take an oath of
allegiance to the U.S. For years later, the law restoring citizenship was further
amended to apply to American women who remained married to the foreign husbands
they had married prior to the passage of the Cable Act.
With the passage of and subsequent amendments to the Cable Act, women's
citizenship no longer depended on that of their husbands. While the Cable Act was
largely overshadowed by another success in the women's rights movement at that
time—the right to vote—it was no less an important step toward women achieving an
identity of their own.
Bibliography
"Advocates Women's Citizenship Bill: Chief of Federal Bureau and County Clerk Favor
Measure Before Congress." New York Times, Aril 11, 1922, http://www.nytimes.com.
Bredbenner, Candice. A Nationality of Her Own: Women, Marriage, and the Law of
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
9/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
Citizenship. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Cunliff-Owen, Frederick. "Hughes to Examine New Marriage Bill: Measure Permits
American Women Wed to Aliens to Retain Citizenship." New York Times, July 2, 1922,
http://www.nytimes.com.
Kerber, Linda. No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of
Citizenship. New York: Hill and Wang, 1998.
Kerber, Linda. Toward and Intellectual History of Women: Essays. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1997.
Lemay, Michael and Elliott Barkan, eds. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and
Issues: A Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Naturalization and Citizenship of Women: Hearings before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization; House of Representatives; Sixty-Seventh Congress.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1922.
Phillips Gibbs, Jeanette. "Our All-American Aliens." New York Times, February 26,
1922, http://www.nytimes.com.
Relative to the Citizenship of American Women Married to Foreigners: Hearings
before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization; House of Representatives;
Sixty-Fifth Congress. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1922, 1918.
Ring Robinson, Helen. Preparing Women for Citizenship. New York: Macmillan, 1918.
Smith, Marian. "Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940. Prologue Magazine,
Summer 1998, http://www.archives.govpublicationsprologue1998summer/women-andnaturalization-1.html.
Stuhler, Barbara and Robert Walker, ed. For the Public Record: A Documentary
History of the League of Women Voters. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Sumner Boyd, Mary. The Woman Citizen: A General Handbook of Civics, with Special
Consideration of Women's Citizenship. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company,
1918.
Van Dyne, Frederick. A Treatise on the Law of Naturalization of the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Frederick Van Dyne, 1907.
"Women Citizens." New York Times, June 25, 1922, http://www.nytimes.com.
Citation Information
MLA
Chicago Manual of Style
Kauffman, Jill. “Cable Act (1922).” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase Publishing, 15
May 2011. Web. 6 Feb. 2013. <http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572>.
How to Cite
RECORD URL: http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
↑ Return to Top
Articles you might also like...
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
1-4 of 6
10/11
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History - Cable Act (1922)
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Should Employers Be Required to
Pay Women and Men Equal
Wages?
Feminist Movement
Should the Equal Rights
Amendment Be Added to the
Constitution?
June 10, 1963
March 22, 1972
Immigration Act of 1921
Government Sets First Quotas
Restricting European Immigration
Immigration and Nationality Act
of 1965
Congress Ends National Origins
Immigration System
May 19, 1921
October 3, 1965
Sources
American Presidential Elections
Help
Terms of Use
Editorial Cartoons and Questions
How to Cite
Privacy Policy
Enhanced Lessons
------------
About Facts on File
Search by Standards
→ More Facts On File Databases
Contact Us
Teacher Resources
Copyright © 2013 Facts On File. All Rights Reserved.
Select Language
Pow ered by
Translate
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107572
11/11