"But we ask you to speak to your party, not for it," answered Mrs. Glendower Evans, Chairman of the deputation, amid evident presidential embarra.s.sment.
Those women who had been inclined perhaps to accept the President"s words as true to fact, entertained doubts when a .few days later he demanded of his party in Congress the repeal of the free tolls provision in the Panama Ca.n.a.l tolls act. In so doing, he not only recommended action not endorsed by his
{30}
party, but he demanded action which his party had specifically declared against.
It was necessary to appeal again to the nation. We called for demonstrations. of public approval of the amendment in every state on May 2. Thousands of resolutions were pa.s.sed calling for action in Congress. These resolutions were made the center of another great demonstration in Washington, May 9, when thousands of women in, procession carried them to the Capitol where beautiful and impressive ceremonies were held on the Capitol steps. The resolutions were formally received by members of Congress and the demonstration ended dramatically with a great chorus of women ma.s.sed on the steps singing "The March of the Women" to the thousands of spectators packed closely together on the Capitol grounds.
And still the President withheld his support.
Under our auspices five hundred representative club women of the country waited upon him in another appeal for help.[1] To them he explained his "pa.s.sion for local self-government," which led to his conviction "that this is a matter for settlement by the states[2] and not by the federal government . . . ."
Women had to face the fact that the 63rd Congress had made a distinctly hostile record on suffrage. The President, as leader of his party, had seven times refused all aid; the Democratic Party had recorded its opposition through an adverse vote in the Senate and a caucus vote in the House forbidding even consideration of the measure.
It became clear that some form of political action would have to be adopted which would act as an accelerator to the Administration. This feeling was growing momentarily among many women, but it was conspicuously strong in the mind of Mrs. Oliver H. P. Belmont, recognized as one of the ablest
[1]7th deputation to the President, June 30, 1914.
[2]This amounted to virtual opposition because of the great difficulties, (some of them almost insuperable) involved in amending many state const.i.tutions.
{31}
suffrage leaders in the country. Antic.i.p.ating the unfriendly record made by the Democrats in the 63rd Congress, Mrs. Belmont had come to Miss Paul and to her vice-chairman, Miss Lucy Burns, to urge the formulation of a plan whereby we could strike at Administration opposition through the women voters of the West.
Miss Paul had the same idea and welcomed the support of this plan by so able a leader.
Mrs. Belmont was impatient to do nationally what she had already inaugurated in New York State suffrage work-make suffrage an election issue. She was the first suffragist in America to be "militant" enough to wage a campaign against office-seekers on the issue of woman suffrage. She was roundly denounced by the opposition press, but she held her ground. It is interesting to record that she defeated the first candidate for the New York a.s.sembly ever campaigned against on this issue.
She had a.s.sociated herself with the Pankhursts in England and was the first suffrage leader here publicly to commend the tactics of the English militants. Through her, Mrs. Pankhurst made her first visits to America, where she found a sympathetic audience. Even among the people who understood and believed in English tactics, the general idea here was that only in the backward country of England was "militancy" necessary. In America, men would give women what women wanted without a struggle.
Mrs. Belmont was the one suffrage leader who foresaw a militant battle here whenever women should determine to ask for their freedom immediately. In a great measure she prepared the way for that battle.
Since the movement had not even advanced to the stage of political action at that time, however, Mrs. Belmont realized that political action would have to be exhausted before attempting more aggressive tactics. Not knowing whether Miss Paul had contemplated inaugurating political action in the
{32}
national field, she sought out the new leader and urged her to begin at, once to organize the women"s power for use in the approaching national elections.
Those interested in the woman"s movement are fairly familiar with Mrs. Belmont"s early state suffrage work and her work with the militants in England, but they do not know as much about her national work. It is not easy for a woman of vast wealth to be credited with much else in America than the fact of generosity in giving money to the cause in which she believes. Wealth dazzles us and we look no further. Mrs. Belmont has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to suffrage, both state and national, but she has given greater gifts in her militant spirit, her political sagacity and a marked tactical sense. She was practically the only leader formerly a.s.sociated with the conservative forces who had the courage to extricate herself from the old routine propaganda and adventure into new paths. She always approached the struggle for liberty in a wholesome revolutionary mood. She was essentially a leader, and one who believed in action-always action.
Until the movement in America regained its militant spirit, her heart was primarily with the English women, because she thought their fight so magnificent that it would bring suffrage to women in England sooner than our slow-going methods would bring it to us. In 1910, when English militancy was at its height, Mrs.
Belmont gave out an interview in London, in which she predicted that English women would have the suffrage before us. She even went so far as to say that we in America would have to create an acute situation here, probably a form of militancy, before we could win. At the same time the President of the International Suffrage Alliance said in London: "The suffrage movement in England- resembles a battle. It is cruel and tragic. Ours in America is an evolution-less dramatic, slow but more sure." Facts sustained Mrs. Belmont"s prophecy. Facts did not sustain the other
{33}
prediction. English women got the vote in 1918. American women were not enfranchised nationally until August, 1920.
The following is the political theory and program approved by Mrs. Belmont and submitted to the Congressional Union, by its chairman, Alice Paul, at a conference of the organization at the home of Mrs. Belmont in Newport in August, 1914:
The dominant party (at that time the Democratic Party) is responsible for all action and therefore for action on suffrage.
This party"s action had been hostile to this measure.
The dominant party in the approaching election must be convinced, and through it all other parties, that opposition to suffrage is inexpedient.
All parties will be convinced when they see that their opposition costs them votes.
Our fight is a political one.
We must appeal for support to the const.i.tuency which is most friendly to suffrage, that const.i.tuency being the voting women.
An attempt must be made, no matter how small, to organize the women"s vote.
An appeal must be made to the women voters in the nine suffrage states to withhold their support from the Democrats nationally, until the national Democratic Party ceases to block the suffrage amendment.
This is non-partisanship in the highest degree, as it calls upon women to forego previous allegiance to a party. If they are Democrats in this instance, ,they must vote against their party.
If the Republican Party were in power and pursued a similar course, we would work against that party.
The party which sees votes falling away will change its att.i.tude.
After we have once affected by this means the outcome of a national election, even though slightly, every party will hesitate to trifle with our measure any longer.
All candidates from suffrage states are professing suffragists, and therefore we have nothing to lose by defeating a
{34}
member of the dominant party in those states. Another suffragist will take his place.
Men will object to being opposed because of their party responsibility in spite of their friendliness individually to suffrage. But women certainly have a right to further through the ballot their wishes on the suffrage question, as well as on other questions like currency, tariff, and what not.
This can only be done by considering the Party record, for as the individual record and individual pledges go, all candidates are practically equal.
We, as a disfranchised cla.s.s, consider our right to vote, preeminently over any other issue in any party"s program.
Political leaders will resent our injecting our issue into their campaign, but the rank and file will be won when they see the loyalty of women to women.
This policy will be called militant and in a sense it is, being strong, positive and energetic.
If it is militant to appeal to women to use their vote to bring suffrage to this country, then it is militant to appeal to men or women to use their vote to any good end.
To the question of "How will we profit if another party comes in?" our answer will be that adequate political chastis.e.m.e.nt of one party for its bad suffrage record through a demonstration of power by women voters affecting the result of the national election, will make it easier to get action from any party in power
Amidst tremendous enthusiasm this plan was accepted by the little conference of women at Newport, and $7,000 pledged in a few moments to start it. There was a small group of women, an infinitely small budget with which to wage a campaign in nine states, but here was also enthusiasm and resolute determination.
A tiny handful of women-never more than two, more often only one to a state-journeyed forth from Washington into the nine suffrage states of the West to put before the voting women this political theory, and to ask them to support it.
{35}
Chapter 2