Burned in Effigy
The suffrage score now stood as follows: One vote lacking in the
Senate, 15 days in which to win it, and President Wilson across the
sea! The Democrats set February 10 as the date on which the Senate
would again vote on the amendment, without any plan as to how the last
vote would be won.
We were powerless to secure the last vote. That was still the
President’s problem. Knowing that he always put forth more effort under
fire of protest from us than when not pressed, we decided to make as a
climax to our watchfire demonstrations a more drastic form of protest.
We wanted to show our contempt for the President’s inadequate support
which promised so much in words and which did so little in deeds to
match the words.
And so on the day preceding the vote we burned in effigy a portrait of
President Wilson even as the Revolutionary fathers had burned a
portrait of King George.[1]
[1] This is the inscription on a tablet at the State House, Dover
Green, Dover, in commemoration of Delaware’s revolutionary leaders.
Signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Caeser Rodney—Thomas McKain—George Read
At the urgent request of Thomas McKain, Caesar Rodney being then in
Delaware, rode post haste on horseback to Philadelphia and reached
Independence Hall July 4, 1776.
The following day news of the adoption of the Declaration of
Independence reaching Dover a portrait of King George was burned on
Dover Green at the order of the Committee of Safety. The following
historic words being uttered by the chairman:
“Compelled by strong necessity thus we destroy even the shadow of
that king who refused to reign over a free people.”
A hundred women marched with banners to the center of the sidewalk
opposite the White House. Mingling with the party’s tri- colored
banners were two lettered ones which read:
ONLY FIFTEEN LEGISLATIVE DAYS ARE LEFT IN THIS CONGRESS.
FOR MORE THAN A YEAR THE PRESIDENT’S PARTY HAS BLOCKED SUFFRAGE IN THE
SENATE.
IT IS BLOCKING IT TODAY.
THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN WOMANHOOD.
And—
WHY DOES NOT THE PRESIDENT INSURE THE PASSAGE OF SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE
TO-MORROW?
WHY DOES HE NOT WIN FROM HIS PARTY THE ONE VOTE NEEDED?
HAS HE AGREED TO PERMIT SUFFRAGE AGAIN TO BE PUSHED ASIDE?
PRESIDENT WILSON IS DECEIVING THE WORLD.
HE PREACHES DEMOCRACY ABROAD AND THWARTS DEMOCRACY HERE.
As the marchers massed their banners, and grouped themselves about the
urn, a dense crowd of many thousand people closed in about them, a
crowd so interested that it stood almost motionless for two hours while
the ceremonies continued. The fire being kindled, and the flames
leaping into the air, Miss Sue White of Tennessee and Mrs. Gabrielle
Harris of South Carolina dropped into the fire in the urn a figure of
President Wilson sketched on paper in black and white—a sort of effigy
de luxe, we called it, but a symbol of our contempt none the less.
Mrs. Henry O. Havemeyer of New York, life-long suffragist and woman of
affairs, said as master of the ceremonies, “Every Anglo-Saxon
government in the world has enfranchised its women. In Russia, in
Hungary, in Austria, in Germany itself, the women are completely
enfranchised, and thirty-four women are now sitting in the new
Reichstag. We women of America are assembled here to-day to voice our
deep indignation that . . . American women are still deprived of a
voice in their government at home. We mean to show that the President .
. . .” She was caught by the arm, placed under arrest, and forced into
the waiting patrol wagon.
Thereupon the police fell upon the ceremonies, and indiscriminate
arrests followed. Women with banners were taken; women without banners
were taken. Women attempting to guard the fire; women standing by doing
nothing at all; all were seized upon and rushed to the patrol. While
this uproar was going on, others attempted to continue the speaking
where Mrs. Havemeyer had left it, but each was apprehended as she made
her attempt. Some that had been scheduled to speak, but were too shy to
utter a word in the excitement, were also taken. When the “Black
Marias” were all filled to capacity, nearby automobiles were
commandeered, and more patrols summoned. And still not even half the
women were captured.
The police ceased their raids suddenly. Orders to arrest no more had
evidently been given. Some one must have suggested that a hundred
additions to the already overcrowded jail and workhouse would be too
embarrassing. Perhaps the ruse of arresting some, and hoping the others
would scamper away at the sight of authority, was still in their minds.
After a brief respite they turned their attention to the fascinated
crowd. They succeeded in forcing back these masses of people half way
across Pennsylvania Avenue, and stationed an officer every two feet in
front of them. But still women came to keep the fire burning. Was there
no end of this battalion of women? The police finally declared a
“military zone” between the encircling crowd and the remaining women,
and no person was allowed to enter the proscribed area. For, another
hour, then, the women stood on guard at the urn, and as night fell, the
ceremonies ended. Sixty of them marched back to headquarters.
Thirty-nine had been arrested.
The following morning, February 10th, saw two not unrelated scenes in
the capital. Senators were gathering in their seats in the senate
chamber to answer. to the roll call on the suffrage amendment. A few
blocks away in the courthouse, thirty-nine women were being tried for
their protest of the previous day.
There was no uncertainty either in the minds of the galleries or of the
senators. Every one knew that we still lacked one vote. The debate was
confined to two speeches, one for and one against.
When the roll was called, there were voting and paired in favor of the
amendment, 63 senators; there were voting and paired against the
amendment 83 senators. The amendment lost therefore, by one vote. Of
the 63 favorable votes 62 were Republicans and 31 Democrats. Of the 33
adverse votes 12 were Republicans and 21 Democrats. This means that of
the 44 Republicans in the Senate, 32 or 73 per cent voted for the
amendment. Of the 52 Democrats in the Senate 31 or 60 per cent voted
for it. And so it was again defeated by the opposition of the
Democratic Administration, and by the failure of the President to put
behind it enough power to win.
Meanwhile another burlesque of justice dragged wearily on in the dim
courtroom. The judge was sentencing thirty-nine women to prison. When
the twenty-sixth had been reached, he said wearily, “How many more are
out there?”
When told that he had tried only two-thirds of the defendants, he
dismissed the remaining thirteen without trial!
They were as guilty as their colleagues. But the judge was tired.
Twenty-six women sent to jail is a full judicial day’s work, I suppose.
There was some rather obvious shame and unhappiness in the Senate
because of the petty thing they had done. The prisoners in the
courtroom were proud because they had done their utmost for the
principle in which they believed.
Senator Jones of New Mexico, Chairman of the Committee, and his
Democratic colleagues refused to reintroduce the Susan B. Anthony
amendment in the Senate immediately after this defeat. But on Monday,
February 17, Senator Jones of Washington, ranking Republican on the
Suffrage Committee, obtained unanimous consent and reintroduced it,
thereby placing it once more on its way to early reconsideration.