An Interlude (Seven Months)
The President had finally thrown his power to putting the amendment
through the House. We hoped he would follow this up by insisting upon
the passage of the amendment in the Senate. We ceased our acts of
dramatic protest for the moment and gave our energies to getting public
pressure upon him, to persuade him to see that the Senate acted. We
also continued to press directly upon recalcitrant senators of the
minority party who could be won only through appeals other than from
the President.
There are in the Senate 96 members—2 elected from each of the 48
states. To pass a constitutional amendment through the Senate, 64 votes
are necessary, a two-thirds majority. At this point in the campaign, 58
senators were pledged to support the measure and 48 were opposed. We
therefore had to win 11 more votes. A measure passed through one branch
of Congress must be passed through the other branch during the life of
that Congress, otherwise it dies automatically and must be born again
in a new Congress. We therefore had only the remainder of the first
regular session of the 65th Congress and, failing of that, the short
second session from December, 1918, to March, 1919, in which to win
those votes.
Backfires were started in the states of the senators not yet committed
to the amendment. Organized demand for action in the Senate grew to
huge proportions.
We turned also to the leading influential members of the respective
parties for active help.
Colonel Roosevelt did his most effective suffrage work at this period
in a determined attack upon the few unconvinced Republican Senators.
The Colonel was one of the few leaders in our national life who was
never too busy to confer or to offer and accept suggestions as to
procedure. He seemed to have imagination about women. He never took a
patronizing attitude nor did he with moral unction dogmatically tell
you how the fight should be waged and won. He presupposed ability among
women leaders. He was not offended, morally or politically, by our
preferring to go to jail rather than to submit in silence. In fact, he
was at this time under Administration fire, because of his bold attacks
upon some of their policies, and remarked during an interview at Oyster
Bay:
“I may soon join you women in jail. One can never tell these days.”
His sagacious attitude toward conservative and radical suffrage forces
was always delightful and indicative of his appreciation of the
political and social value of a movement’s having vitality enough to
disagree on methods. None of the banal philosophy that “you can never
win until all your forces get together” from the Colonel. One day, as I
came into his office for an interview, I met a member of the
conservative suffragists just leaving, and we spoke. In his office the
Colonel remarked, “You know, I contemplated having both you and Mrs.
Whitney come to see me at the same time, since it was on a similar
mission, but I didn’t quite know whether the lion and the lamb would
lie down together, and I thought I’d better take no chances . . . . But
I see you’re on speaking terms,” he added. I answered that our
relations were extremely amiable, but remarked that the other side
might not like to be called “lambs.”
“You delight in being the lions-on that point I am safe, am I not?” And
he smiled his widest smile as he plunged into a vivid expository attack
upon the Senatorial opponents of suffrage in his own party. He wrote
letters to them. If this failed, he invited them to Oyster Bay for the
week-end. Never did he abandon them until there was literally not a
shadow of hope to bank on.
When the Colonel got into action something always happened on the
Democratic side. He made a public statement to Senator Gallinger of New
Hampshire, Republican leader in the Senate, in which lie pointed to the
superior support of the Republicans and urged even more liberal party
support to ensure the passage of the amendment in the Senate. Action by
the Democrats followed fast on the heels of this public statement.
The National Executive Committee of the Democratic party, after a
referendum vote of the members of the National Committeemen, passed a
resolution calling for favorable action in the Senate. Mr. A. Mitchell
Palmer wrote to the Woman’s Party saying that this resolution must be
regarded as “an official expression of the Democratic Party through the
only organization which can speak for it between national conventions.”
The Republican National Committee meeting at the same time commended
the course taken by Republican Representatives who had voted for the
amendment in the House, and declared their position to be “a true
interpretation of the thought of the Republican Party.”
Republican and Democratic state, county and city committees followed
the lead and called for Senate action.
State legislatures in rapid succession called upon the Senate to pass
the measure, that they in turn might immediately ratify. North Dakota,
New York, Rhode Island, Arizona, Texas and other states acted in this
matter.
Intermittent attempts on the Republican side to force action, followed
by eloquent speeches from time to time, piquing their opponents, left
the Democrats bison-like across the path. The majority of them were
content to rest upon the action taken in the House.
I was at this time Chairman of the Political Department of the Woman’s
Party, and in that capacity interviewed practically every national
leader in both majority parties. I can not resist recording a few
impressions.
Colonel William Boyce Thompson of New York, now Chairman of Ways and
Means of the Republican National Committee, who with Raymond Robins had
served in Russia as member of the United States Red Cross. Mission, had
just returned. The deadlock was brought to his attention. He
immediately responded in a most effective way. In a brief but dramatic
speech at a great mass meeting of the Woman’s Party, at Palm Beach,
Florida, he said:
“The story of the brutal imprisonment in Washington of women advocating
suffrage is shocking and almost incredible. I became accustomed in
Russia to the stories of men and women who served terms of imprisonment
under the Czar, because of their love of liberty, but did not know that
women in my own country had been subjected to brutal treatment long
since abandoned in Russia.
“I wish now to contribute ten thousand dollars to the campaign for the
passage of the suffrage amendment through the Senate,, one hundred
dollars for each of the pickets who went to prison because she stood at
the gates of the White House, asking for the passage of the suffrage
measure.”
This was the largest single contribution received during the national
agitation. Colonel Thompson had been a suffragist all his life, but he
now became actively identified with the work for the national
amendment. Since then he has continued to give generously of his money
and to lend his political prestige as often as necessary.
Colonel House was importuned to use his influence to win additional
Democratic votes in the Senate, or better still to urge the President
to win them. Colonel House is an interesting but not unfamiliar type in
politics. Extremely courteous, mild mannered, able, quickly
sympathetic, he listens with undistracted attention to your request.
His round bright eyes snap as he comes at you with a counter-proposal.
It seems so reasonable. And while you know he is putting back upon you
the very task you are trying to persuade him to undertake, he does it
so graciously that you can scarcely resist liking it. He has the manner
of having done what you ask without actually doing more than to make
you feel warm at having met him. It is a kind of elegant statecraft
which has its point of grace, but which is exasperating when
effectiveness is needed. Not that Colonel House was not a supporter of
the federal amendment. He was. But his gentle, soft and traditional
kind of diplomacy would not employ high-powered pressure. “I shall be
going to Washington soon on other matters, and I shall doubtless see
the President. Perhaps he may bring up the subject in conversation, and
if he does, and the opportunity offers itself, I may be able to do
something.” Some such gentle threat would come from the Colonel. He was
not quite so tender, however, in dealing with Democratic senators,
after the President declared for the amendment. He did try to win them.
Ex-President Taft, then joint Chairman of the National War Labor Board,
was interviewed at his desk just after rendering an important
democratic labor award.
“No, indeed! I’ll do nothing for a proposition which adds more voters
to our electorate. I thought my position on this question was well
known,” said Mr. Taft.
“But we thought you doubtless had changed your mind since the beginning
of our war for democracy——” I started to answer.
“This is not a war for democracy,” he said emphatically, looking
quizzically at me for my assertion; “if it were, I wouldn’t be doing
anything for it …. The trouble in this country is we’ve got too many mm
voting as it is. Why, I’d take the vote away from most of the men,” he
added. I wanted to ask him what men he would leave voting. I wanted
also to tell him they were taking the vote away from one class of men
in Russia at that moment.
Instead, I said, “Well, I’m not quite sure whom we could trust to sit
in judgment”—while he looked smiling and serene, as much as to say,
“Oh, that would be a simple matter.”
“However,” I said, “we have no quarrel with you. You are an avowed
aristocrat, and we respect your candor. Our quarrel is with democrats
who will not trust their own doctrines.” Again he smiled with as much
sophistication as such a placid face could achieve, and that was all. I
believe Mr. Taft has lately modified his attitude toward women voting.
I do not know how he squares that with his distaste of democracy.
There was Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of
Labor, high in Administration confidence. It was a long wait before
Abby Scott Baker and I were allowed into his sanctum.
“Well, ladies, what can I do for you?” was the opening question, and
we’ thought happily here is a man who will not bore us with his life
record on behalf of women. He comes to the point with direction.
“Will you speak to the President on behalf of your organization, which
has repeatedly endorsed national suffrage, to induce him to put more
pressure behind the Senate which is delaying suffrage?” we asked with
equal direction. We concealed a heavy sigh as a reminiscent look came
into his shrewd, wan eyes, and he began:
“Doubtless you ladies do not know that as long ago as 1888”-I believe
that was the date-“my organization sent a petition to the United States
Congress praying for the adoption of this very amendment and we have
stood for it ever since . . . .”
“Don’t you think it is about time that prayer was answered?” we
ventured to interrupt. But his reverie could not be disturbed. He
looked at us coldly, for he was living in the past, and continued to
recount the patient, enduring qualities of his organization.
“I will speak to my secretary and see what the organization can do,” he
said finally. We murmured again that it was the President we wished him
to speak to, but we left feeling reasonably certain that there would be
no dynamic pressure from this cautious leader.
Herbert Hoover was the next man we sought. Here we encountered the
well-groomed secretary who would not carry our cards into his chief.
“Mr. Hoover has appointments a week ahead,” he said. “For example, his
chart for to-day includes a very important conference with some grain
men from the Northwest,” . . . and he continued to recite the items of
the chart, ending with “a dinner at the White House to-night.”
“If we could see him for just five minutes,” we persisted, “he could do
what we ask this very night at the White House.” But the
trained-to-protect secretary was obdurate.
“We shall leave a written request for five minutes at Mr. Hoover’s
convenience,” we said, and prepared the letter.
Time passed without answer. Mrs. Baker and I were compelled to go again
to Mr. Hoover’s office.
Again we were greeted by the affable secretary, who on this occasion
recounted not only his chief’s many pressing engagements, but his
devoted family life—his Saturday and Sunday habits which were “so
dreadfully cut into by his heavy work:” We were sympathetic but firm.
Would Mr. Hoover not be willing to answer our letter? Would he not be
willing to state publicly that he thought the amendment ought to be
passed in the Senate? Would the secretary, in short, please go to him
to ascertain if he’ would be willing to say a single word in behalf of
the political liberty of women? The secretary disappeared and returned
to say, “Mr. Hoover wishes me to tell you ladies he can give no time
whatever to the consideration of your question until after the war is
over. This is final.”
The Chief Food Administrator would continue to demand sacrifices of
women throughout the war, but he would not give so much as a thought to
their rights in return. Mr. Hoover was the only. important man in
public life who steadfastly refused to see our representatives. After
announcing his candidacy for nomination to the Presidency he authorized
his secretary to write us a letter saying he had always been for woman
suffrage.
Mr. Bainbridge Colby, then member of the Emergency Fleet Corporation of
the Shipping Board and member of the Inter-Allied Council which sat on
shipping problems, now Secretary of State in President Wilson’s
Cabinet, was approached as a suffragist, known to have access to the
President. Mr. Colby had just returned from abroad when I saw him. He
is a cultivated gentleman, but he knows how to have superlative
enthusiasm.
“In the light of the world events,” he said, “this reform is
insignificant. No time or energy ought to be diverted from the great
program of crushing the Germans.”
“But can we not do that,” I asked, “without neglecting internal
liberties?”
Mr. Colby is a strong conformist. He became grave. When I was
indiscreet enough to reveal that I was inclined to pin my faith to the
concrete liberty of women, rather than to a vague and abstract “human
freedom,” which was supposed to descend upon the world, once the
Germans were beaten, I know he wanted to call me “seditious.” But he is
a gallant gentleman and he only frowned with distress. He continued
with enthusiasm to plan to build ships.
Bernard Baruch, then member of the Advisory Committee of the Council of
National Defense, later economic expert at the Peace Conference, was
able to see the war and the women’s problem at the same time. He is an
able politician and was therefore sensitive to our appeal; he saw the
passage of the amendment as a political asset. I do not know how much
he believed in the principle. That was of minor importance. What was
important was that he agreed to tell the President that he believed it
wise to put more pressure on the measure in the Senate. Also I believe
Mr. Baruch was one member of the Administration who realized in the
midst of the episode that arresting women was bad politics, to say
nothing of the doubtful chivalry of it.
George Creel, chairman of the Committee on Public Information, was also
asked for help. We went to him many times, because his contact with the
President was constant. A suffragist of long standing, he nevertheless
hated our militant tactics, for he knew we were winning and the
Administration was losing. He is a strange composite. Working at
terrific tension and mostly under fire, he was rarely in calm enough
mood to sit down and devise ways and means.
“But I talk to the President every day on this matter”—and—“I am doing
all I can”—and—“The President is doing all he can”—he would drive at
you—without stopping for breath.
“But if you will just ask him to get Senator ——”
“He is working on the Senator now. You people must give him time. He
has other things to do,” he would say, sweeping aside every suggestion.
Familiar advice!
Charles D. Hilles, former Chairman of the Republican National
Committee, was a leader who had come slowly to believe in national
suffrage. But, once convinced, he was a faithful and dependable
colleague who gave practical political assistance.
William Randolph Hearst in powerful editorials called upon the Senators
to act. Mr. R. J. Caldwell of New York, life-long suffragist, financier
and man of affairs, faithfully and persistently stood by the amendment
and by the militants. A more generous contributor and more diligent
ally could not be found. A host of public men were interviewed and the
great majority of them did help at this critical juncture. It is
impossible to give a list that even approaches adequacy, so I shall not
attempt it.
Our pressure from below and that of the leaders from above began to
have its effect. An attempt was made by Administration leaders to force
a vote on May 19, 1918. Friends interceded when it was shown that not
enough votes were pledged to secure passage. Again the vote was
tentatively set for June 27th and again postponed.
The Republicans, led by Senator Gallinger, provided skirmishes from
time to time. The Administration was accused on the floor of blocking
action, to which accusation its leaders did not even reply.
Still unwilling to believe that we would be forced to resume our
militancy we attempted to talk to the President again A special
deputation of women munition workers was sent to him under our
auspices. The women waited for a week, hoping he would consent to see
them among his receptions—to the Blue Devils of France, to a Committee
of Indians, to a Committee of Irish Patriots, and so forth.
“No time,” was the answer. And the munition workers were forced to
submit their appeal in writing.
“We are only a few of the thousands of American women,” they wrote the
President, “who are forming a growing part of the army at home. The
work we are doing is hard and dangerous to life and health, making
detonators, handling TNT, the highest of all explosives. We want to be
recognized by our country, as much her citizens as our soldiers are.”
Mr. Tumulty replied for the President:
“The President asks me to say that nothing you or your associates could
say could possibly increase his very deep interest in this matter and
that he is doing everything that he could with honor and propriety do
in behalf of the [suffrage] amendment.”
An opportunity was given the President to show again his sympathy for a
world-wide endeavor just after having ignored this specific opportunity
at home. He hastened to accept the larger field. In response to a
memorial transmitted through Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, President of the
International Woman Suffrage Alliance, the French Union for Woman
Suffrage urged the President to use his aid on their behalf “which will
be a powerful influence for woman suffrage in the entire world.” The
memorial was endorsed by the suffrage committee of Great Britain,
Italy, Belgium, and Portugal. The President took the occasion to say:
“The democratic reconstruction of the world will not have been
completely or adequately obtained until women are admitted to the
suffrage. As for America it is my earnest hope that the Senate of the
United States will give an unmistakable answer by passing the federal
amendment before the end of this session.”
Meanwhile four more Democratic Senators pledged their support to the
amendment. Influenced by the President’s declaration of support, and by
widespread demands from their constituents, Senators Phelan of
California, King of Utah, Gerry of Rhode Island, and Culberson of Texas
abandoned the ranks of the opposition.
During this same period the Republican side of the Senate gave five
more Republican Senators to the amendment. They were Senators McCumber
of North Dakota, Kellogg of Minnesota, Harding of Ohio, Page of
Vermont, and Sutherland of West Virginia. All of these men except
Senator McCumber[1] were won through the pressure from Republican Party
leaders.
[1] Senator McCumber, though opposed, was compelled to support the
measure, by the action of the N. D. legislature commanding him to do
so.
This gain of nine recruits reduced to two the number of votes to be
won.
When at the end of seven months from the time the amendment had passed
the House, we still lacked these two votes, and the President gave no
assurance that he would put forth sufficient effort to secure them, we
were compelled to renew our attacks upon the President.