The Suffrage War Policy
President Wilson called the War Session of the Sixty-fifth Congress on
April 2, 1917.
On the opening day of Congress not only were the pickets again on duty
at the White House, but another picket line was inaugurated at the
Capitol. Returning senators and congressmen were surprised when greeted
with great golden banners reading:
RUSSIA AND ENGLAND ARE ENFRANCHISING THEIR WOMEN IN WAR-TIME. HOW LONG
MUST AMERICAN WOMEN WAIT FOR THEIR LIBERTY
The last desperate flurries in the pro-war and anti-war camps were
focused on the Capitol grounds that day. There swarmed about the
grounds and through the buildings pacifists from all over the country
wearing white badges, and advocates of war, wearing the national
colors. Our sentinels at the Capitol stood strangely silent, and almost
aloof, strong in their dedication to democracy, while the peace and war
agitation circled about them.
With lightning speed the President declared that a state of war
existed. Within a fortnight following, Congress declared war on Germany
and President Wilson voiced his memorable, “We shall fight for the
things we have always carried nearest our hearts—for democracy—for the
right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own
government.” Inspiring words indeed! The war message concluded with
still another defense of the fight for political liberty: “To such a
task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are
and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the
day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her
might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the
peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no less.”
Now that the United States was actually involved in war, we were face
to face with the question, which we had considered at the convention
the previous month, when war was rumored, as to what position we, as an
organization, should take in this situation.
The atmosphere of that convention had been dramatic in the extreme.
Most of the delegates assembled had been approached either before going
to Washington or upon arriving, and urged to use their influence to
persuade the organization to abandon its work for the freedom of women
and turn its activities into war channels. Although war was then only
rumored, the hysterical attitude was already prevalent. Women were
asked to furl their banners and give up their half century struggle for
democracy, to forget the liberty that was most precious to their
hearts.
“The President will turn this Imperialistic war into a crusade for
democracy.” . . . “Lay aside your own fight and help us crush Germany,
and you will find yourselves rewarded with a vote out of the nation’s
gratitude,” were some of the appeals made to our women by government
officials high and low and by the rank and file of men and women. Never
in history did a band of women stand together with more sanity and
greater solidarity than did these 1000 delegates representing thousands
more throughout the States.
As our official organ, _The Suffragist_, pointed out editorially, in
its issue of April 21st, 1917: Our membership was made up of women who
had banded together to secure political freedom for women. We were
united on no other subject. Some would offer passive resistance to the
war; others would become devoted followers of a vigorous military
policy. Between these, every shade of opinion was represented. Each was
loyal to the ideas which she held for her country. With the character
of these various ideals, the National Woman’s Party, we maintained, had
nothing to do. It was concerned only with the effort to obtain for
women the opportunity to give effective expression, through political
power, to their ideals, whatever they might be.
The thousand delegates present at the convention, though differing
widely on the duty of the individual in war, were unanimous in voting
that in the event of war, the National Woman’s Party, as an
organization, should continue to work for political liberty for women
and for that alone, believing as the convention stated in its
resolutions, that in so doing the organization “serves the highest
interest of the country.” They were also unanimous in the opinion that
all service which individuals wished to give to war or peace should be
given through groups organized for such purposes, and not through the
Woman’s Party, a body created, according to its constitution, for one
purpose only—“to secure an amendment to the United States Constitution
enfranchising women.”
We declared officially through our organ that this held “as the policy
of the Woman’s Party, whatever turn public events may take.”
Very few days after we were put upon a national war basis it became
clear that never was there greater need of work for internal freedom in
the country. Europe, then approaching her third year of war, was
increasing democracy in the midst of the terrible conflict. In America
at that very moment women were being told that no attempt at electoral
reform had any place in the country’s program “until the war is over.”
The Democrats met in caucus and decided that only “war measures” should
be included in the legislative program, and announced that no subjects
would be considered by them, unless the President urged them as war
measures.
Our task was, from that time on, to make national suffrage a war
measure.
We at once urged upon the Administration the wisdom of accepting this
proposed reform as a war measure, and pointed out the difficulty of
waging a war for democracy abroad while democracy was denied at home.
But the government was not willing to profit by the experience of its
Allies in extending suffrage to women, without first offering a
terrible and brutal resistance.
We must confess that the problem of dramatizing our fight for democracy
in competition with the drama of a world-war, was most perplexing. Here
were we, citizens without power and recognition, with the only weapons
to which a powerless class which does not take up arms can resort. We
could not and would not fight with men’s weapons. Compare the methods
women adopted to those men use in the pursuit of democracy,—bayonets,
machine guns, poison gas, deadly grenades, liquid fire, bombs, armored
tanks, pistols, barbed wire entanglements, submarines, mines—every
known scientific device with which to annihilate the enemy!
What did we do?
We continued to fight with our simple, peaceful, almost quaint device
-a banner. A little more fiery, perhaps; pertinent to the latest
political controversy, but still only a banner inscribed with militant
truth!
Just as our political strategy had been to oppose, at elections, the
party in power which had failed to use its power to free women, so now
our military strategy was based on the military doctrine of
concentrating all one’s forces on the enemy’s weakest point. To women
the weakest point in the Administration’s political lines during the
war was the inconsistency between a crusade for world democracy and the
denial of democracy at home. This was the untenable position of
President Wilson and the Democratic Administration, from which we must
force them to retreat. We could force such a retreat when we had
exposed to the world this weakest point.
Just as the bluff of a democratic crusade must be called, so must the
knight-leader of the crusade be exposed to the critical eyes of the
world. Here was the President, suddenly elevated to the position of a
world leader with the almost pathetic trust of the peoples of the
world. Here was the champion of their democratic aspirations. Here was
a kind of universal Moses, expected to lead all peoples out of
bondage—no matter what the bondage, no matter of how long standing.
The President’s elevation to this unique pinnacle of power was at once
an advantage and a disadvantage to us. It was an advantage to us in
that it made our attack more dramatic. One supposed to be impeccable
was more vulnerable. It was a disadvantage to have to overcome this
universal trust and world-wide popularity. But this conflict of wits
and brains against power only enhanced our ingenuity.
On the day the English mission headed by Mr. Balfour, and the French
mission headed by M. Viviani, visited the White House, we took these
inscriptions to the picket line:
WE SHALL FIGHT FOR THE THINGS WE HAVE ALWAYS CARRIED NEAREST OUR HEARTS
DEMOCRACY SHOULD BEGIN AT HOME
WE DEMAND JUSTICE AND SELF-GOVERNMENT IN OUR OWN LAND
Embarrassing to say these things before foreign visitors? We hoped it
would be. In our capacity to embarrass Mr. Wilson in his
Administration, lay our only hope of success. We had to keep before the
country the flagrant inconsistency of the President’s position. We
intended to know why, if democracy were so precious as to demand the
nation’s blood and treasure for its achievement abroad, its execution
at home was so undesirable.
Meanwhile:—
“I tell you solemnly, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot any longer
postpone justice in these United States”—President Wilson.
“I don’t wish to sit down and let any man take care of me without my at
least having a voice in it, and if he doesn’t listen to my advice, I am
going to make it as unpleasant as I can.”—President Wilson,—and other
challenges were carried on banners to the picket line.
Some rumblings of political action began to be heard. The Democratic
majority had appointed a Senate Committee on Woman Suffrage whose
members were overwhelmingly for federal action. The chairman, Senator
Andreas Jones of New Mexico, promised an early report to the Senate.
There were scores of gains in Congress. Representatives and Senators
were tumbling over each other to introduce similar suffrage
resolutions. We actually had difficulty in choosing the man whose name
should stamp our measure.
A minority party also was moved to act. Members of the Progressive
Party met in convention in St. Louis on April 12, 13 and 14 and adopted
a suffrage plank which demanded “the nation- wide enfranchisement of
women . . . .”
In addition to this plank they adopted a resolution calling for the
establishment of democracy at home “at a time when the United States is
entering into an international war for democracy” and instructing the
chairman of the convention “to request a committee consisting of
representatives of all liberal groups to go to Washington to present to
the President and the Congress of the United States a demand for
immediate submission of an amendment to the United States constitution
enfranchising women.”
They appointed a committee from the convention to carry these
resolutions to the President. The committee included Mr. J. A. H.
Hopkins of the Progressive Party, as chairman; Dr. E. A. Rumley of the
Progressive-Republican Party and Vice President of the New York Evening
Mail; Mr. John Spargo of the Socialist Party; Mr. Virgil Hinshaw,
chairman of the Executive Committee of the Prohibition Party; and Miss
Mabel Vernon, Secretary of the National Woman’s Party. It was the first
suffrage conference with the President after the declaration of war,
and was the last deputation on suffrage by minority party leaders. The
conference was one of the utmost informality and friendliness.
The President was deeply moved, indeed, almost to the point of tears,
when Miss Mabel Vernon said, “Mr. President, the feelings of many women
in this country are best expressed by your own words in your war
message to Congress . . . . To every woman who reads that message must
come at once this question: If the right of those who submit to
authority to have a voice in their own government is so sacred a cause
to foreign people as to constitute the reason for our entering the
international war in its defense, will you not, Mr. President, give
immediate aid to the measure before Congress demanding self-government
for the women of this country?”
The President admitted that suffrage was constantly pressing upon his
mind for reconsideration. He added, however, that the program for the
session was practically complete and intimated that it did not include
the enfranchisement of women.
He informed the Committee that he had written a letter to Mr. Pou,
Chairman of the Rules Committee of the House, expressing himself as
favoring the creation of a Woman Suffrage Committee in that body. While
we had no objection to having the House create a Suffrage Committee, we
were not primarily interested in the amplification of Congressional
machinery, unless this amplification was to be followed by the passage
of the amendment. The President could as easily have written the Senate
Committee on Suffrage or the Judiciary Committee of the House, advising
an immediate report on the suffrage resolution, as have asked for the
creation of another committee to report on the subject.
He made no mention of his state-by-state conviction, however, as he had
in previous interviews, and the Committee of Progressives understood
him to have at least tacitly accepted federal action.
The House Judiciary Committee continued to refuse to act and the House
Rules Committee steadily refused to create a Suffrage Committee.
Hoping to win back to the fold the wandering Progressives who had thus
demonstrated their allegiance to suffrage and seeing an opportunity to
embarrass the Administration, the, Republicans began to interest
themselves in action on the amendment. In the midst of Democratic
delays, Representative James R. Mann, Republican leader of the House,
moved to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further consideration
of the suffrage amendment. No matter if the discussion which followed
did revolve about the authorization of an expenditure of $10,000 for
the erection of a monument to a dead President as a legitimate war
measure. It was clear from the partisan attitude of those who took part
in the debate that we were advancing to that position where we were as
good political material to be contested over by opposing political
groups as was a monument to a dead President. And if the Democrats
could defend such an issue as a war measure, the Republicans wanted to
know why they should ignore suffrage for women as a war measure. And it
was encouraging to find ourselves thus suddenly and spontaneously
sponsored by the Republican leader.
The Administration was aroused. It did not know how far the Republicans
were prepared to go in their drive for action, so on the day of this
flurry in the House the snail-like Rules Committee suddenly met in
answer to the call of its chairman, Mr. Pou, and by a vote of 6 to 5
decided to report favorably on the resolution providing for a Woman
Suffrage Committee in the House “after all pending war measures have
been disposed of.”
Before the meeting, Mr. Pou made a last appeal to the Woman’s Party to
remove the pickets . . . . “We can’t possibly win as long as pickets
guard the White House and Capitol,” Mr. Pou had said. The pickets
continued their vigil and the motion carried.
Still uncertain as to the purposes of the Republicans, the Democrats
were moved to further action.
The Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee, meeting
in Washington a few days later, voted 4 to 9. to “officially urge upon
the President that he call the two Houses of Congress together and
recommend the immediate submission of the Susan B. Anthony amendment.”
This action which in effect reversed the plank in the Democratic
platform evidently aroused protests from powerful quarters. Also the
Republicans quickly subsided when they saw the Democrats making an
advance. And so the Democratic Executive Committee began to spread
abroad the news that its act was not really official, but merely
reflected the “personal conviction” of the members present. It
extracted the official flavor, and so of course no action followed in
Congress.
And so it went—like a great game of chess. Doubtless the politicians
believed they were moved from their own true and noble motives. The
fact was that the pickets had moved the Democrats a step. The
Republicans had then attempted to take two steps, whereupon the
Democrats must continue to move more rapidly than their opponents.
Behind this matching of political wits by the two parties stood the
faithful pickets compelling them both to act.
Simultaneously with these moves and counter-moves in political circles,
the people in all sections of this vast country began to speak their
minds. Meetings were springing up everywhere, at which resolutions were
passed backing up the picket line and urging the President and Congress
to act. Even the South, the Administration’s stronghold, sent fiery
telegrams demanding action. Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Maryland,
Mississippi, as well as the West, Middle West, New England and the
East—the stream was endless.
Every time a new piece of legislation was passed,—the war tax bill,
food conservation or what not,—women from unexpected quarters sent to
the Government their protest against the passage of measures so vital
to women without women’s consent, coupled with an appeal for the
liberation of women. Club women, college women, federations of
labor,—various kinds of organizations sent protests to the
Administration leaders. The picket line, approaching its sixth month of
duty, had aroused the country to an unprecedented interest in suffrage;
it had rallied widespread public support to the amendment as a war
measure, and had itself become almost univer- sally accepted if not
universally approved. And in the midst of picketing ands in spite of
all the prophecies and fears that “picketing” would “set back the
cause,” within one month, Michigan, Nebraska and Rhode Island granted
Presidential suffrage to women.
The leaders were busy marshaling their forces behind the President’s
war program, which included the controversial Conscription and
Espionage Bills, then pending, and did not relish having our question
so vivid in the public mind. Even when the rank and file of Congress
gave consideration to questions not in the war program, they had to
face a possible charge of inconsistency, insincerity or bad faith. The
freedom of Ireland, for example, was not in the program. And when 132
members of the House cabled Lloyd George that nothing would do more for
American enthusiasm in the war than a settlement of the Irish question,
we took pains to ascertain the extent of the belief in liberty at home
of these easy champions of Irish liberty. When we found that of the 132
men only 5’7 believed in liberty for American women, we were not
delicate in pointing out to the remaining “(5 that their belief in
liberty for Ireland would appear more sincere if they believed in a
democratic reform such as woman suffrage here.
The manifestations of popular approval of suffrage, the constant stream
of protests to the Administration against its delay nationally, and the
shame of having women begging at its gates, could result in only one of
two things. The Administration had little choice. It must yield to this
pressure from the people or it must suppress the agitation which was
causing such interest. It must pass the amendment or remove the
troublesome pickets.
It decided to remove the pickets.