number of persons carried into citizenship by the naturalization
of the father. Assuming, as probably it is safe to do so, that the
ratio has generally been maintained in the past, the totals of
“derivative citizenship” become portentous. In 1910, the census
reported 6,646,817 foreign-born white males over twenty-one years
of age. Of these, not quite one-half (3,034,117, or 45.6 per cent)
were naturalized. It is not safe to assume that all of the remainder
were unnaturalized, because it is not clear that the enumerators were
careful to report as naturalized those who, though foreign born,
had been automatically carried into citizenship by their father’s
naturalization before they were twenty-one. Possibly a part of the
relatively large number of cases (11.7 per cent) in which citizenship
was not reported may be accounted for by ignorance or doubt as to
the status of the father.
WOMAN SUFFRAGE WAS WIDESPREAD
However that may be, it is sufficiently evident that a vast number
of mothers, actual or potential, have been accorded full and
irrevocable citizenship, and the voting power involved, through
the naturalization of their husbands. Of these, the proportion of
those to whom it really meant anything, or means anything yet, is
small. The danger, as far as the ballot was concerned, was and is
inconsiderable. Yet it was potentially large, in a good-sized part
of the country. Prior to the ratification of the Woman Suffrage
Amendment women already had full or partial suffrage in most of the
states, as will be seen in the following table:
TABLE XXXV
YEARS IN WHICH FULL AND PARTIAL SUFFRAGE WAS GRANTED TO WOMEN IN
EACH STATE
====================================================================
FULL | PARTIAL | SCHOOL AND TAX
---------------+------+---------------+------+---------------+------
State | Date | State | Date | State | Date
---------------+------+---------------+------+---------------+------
Wyoming | 1869 | Illinois | 1913 | New Jersey | 1827
Colorado | 1893 | North Dakota | 1917 | Connecticut | 1893
Idaho | 1896 | Nebraska | 1917 | Delaware | 1898
Utah | 1896 | Indiana | 1917 | New Mexico | 1910
Washington | 1910 | Rhode Island | 1917 | |
California | 1911 | Arkansas | 1917 | |
Arizona | 1912 | Vermont | 1917 | |
Kansas | 1912 | Texas | 1918 | |
Oregon | 1912 | Wisconsin | 1919 | |
Alaska | 1913 | Minnesota | 1919 | |
Montana | 1914 | Missouri | 1919 | |
Nevada | 1914 | Maine | 1919 | |
New York | 1917 | Iowa | 1919 | |
Michigan | 1918 | Ohio | 1919 | |
South Dakota | 1918 | | | |
Oklahoma | 1918 | | | |
====================================================================
The ratification of the Suffrage Amendment makes every woman a voter
for all purposes, subject only to the provision in the Constitution
or statutes of such states as prescribe for those foreign born a
residence qualification, as in the cases of New York and Rhode
Island. The latter state, for example, provides “that no woman
citizen of foreign birth shall be entitled to vote unless she has
resided in the United States five years.”
It is to be remembered that the question of citizenship involved
many considerations besides the right to vote; it is an exceedingly
intricate and important subject, including title to property, the
parental relation, etc. It would seem to lie within the powers of
individual states to govern by statute the qualifications of voters,
by means of a residence or educational standard, personal oath of
allegiance, or what not. The only thing they cannot now do under the
Constitution of the United States, so far as women are concerned, is
to exclude any citizen from the ballot box by reason of sex.[150] But
only Congress can grant full citizenship to the foreign-born married
woman regardless of that of her husband, and to make such citizenship
optional with the wife would occasion much confusion in international
law, as well as in domestic matters. It is relatively simple from
the point of view of lay ethics and common sense; but by no means so
simple as it looks.
APPLICANTS CAME AS YOUNG MARRIED MEN
The elaborate statistics compiled by the Americanization Study from
examination of more than 26,000 petitions for naturalization seem
to indicate that the great majority of immigrants who subsequently
seek citizenship are young married men, accompanied by foreign-born
wives; but their children are born in the United States, and are
therefore citizens by right of birth. These men do not file their
petition for citizenship, in the average case, until they have
been in this country more than ten years. In the meantime, their
children, who presumably do not wait to be born until their parents
have become American citizens, live in homes presided over by alien
parents who still cling to the thought, traditions, and customs of
the old country; what these children get of the American atmosphere
they get in the public schools and in the streets. And it probably is
fair to infer, as many students have inferred, that a large measure
of the breakdown of home control and discipline, showing in the
greater percentage of delinquency among young people of the second
generation, is due to this exotic condition of the homes; to the fact
that the children are acquiring an American life of their own without
the old restraints; they have lost--never had, indeed--something they
would have had in old-country homes, and have gained nothing to take
its place because the homes are still “foreign.” The children quickly
learn “the ropes” of American life; they feel themselves superior to
their parents in this respect, and this inevitably undermines the
parental authority.[151]
THE MOTHER MUST BE “AMERICANIZED”
The mother is the keystone of the home. Some way must be found to
take her into the American life. The citizenship which she gains
willy-nilly through the naturalization of her husband, even after
she has lived here for ten years, bears no necessary relation to her
life or character. As Mr. Crist in the Naturalization Bureau’s report
for 1919 implies, she is confined within the four walls of her home,
chained to her household routine; and nothing in the ritual or system
of naturalization calls upon her to be American in any respect.
The position, reactions, and influences of the foreign-born woman
in American social life--any aspect of it, domestic, industrial,
political--cannot be intelligently understood or discussed unless and
until we cease to think of her as in any sense a peculiar animal,
or even a human being different in any fundamental way from other
human beings. She lived her life in the old country, grew up from
childhood, married, came to this country, bore her children here or
before she came here, conducts her home, and participates or fails
to participate in all the activities of life, under exactly the same
kind of motives and impulses, and with essentially the same kind of
results, as would be the case with an American woman with the same
antecedents, education, resources, in the same circumstances.
She has, however, an additional handicap, and it is of the utmost
importance to bear this handicap in mind in the consideration not
only of her place in the general problem of the assimilation of the
foreign-born population, but of her possibilities and influence as a
potential voter, helping to decide by her ballot the great questions
which in America are supposed to be settled at the ballot box.
Consider the native-born woman, of the old stock, as she has actually
functioned in the widening field of political activity opening to her
with the spread of woman suffrage. It is no wonder, but it is true,
that the mass of women thus enfranchised have shown the results of
the long-standing belief that “the place of woman is in the home.”
She has had no reason for learning, and little opportunity to learn,
the things pertaining to political life; she has not understood its
problems, grasped the significance of its slogans, or brought her
mind to bear upon its significances.
Slowly, very slowly, there has grown up a group, larger and larger in
numbers, but still very small in proportion, active and intelligent
in the movement for enfranchisement, developing rapidly--perhaps
even more rapidly than would have been the case with men--in the
intellectual grasp of the subjects involved. But the mass of
the American-born, English-speaking women of the country have
remained what they were before--devoted mothers, quiet, homekeeping
housewives, not only content to leave these matters to their husbands
and sons, but more or less bored by “politics” and on the whole
somewhat resentful toward the effort to enlist them in the turmoil. A
large proportion of them have been, in fact, relatively oblivious to
the whole business.
MUST LEARN POLITICS BY POLITICAL ACTIVITY
It is the activity in the political function that both awakens
interest and inspires intelligence. Why should a woman, brought up in
the old, restricted, domestic tradition, forthwith become a vital,
vigorous, political force merely because the ballot is put into her
hands? Those who have been in the long fight for suffrage have been
thinking, talking, agitating, and when finally their effort came to
success they were ready for the new responsibilities and activities;
indeed, they often have gone beyond the desire for mere participation
in the routine of the layman’s place in ordinary party politics, and
have shown distinct tendencies toward not only independence, but
what the old-timers would call radicalism, to say nothing of going
farther into the ranks of the avowed radicals. A large number of
these were active and vociferous in the Progressive party in 1912,
and in subsequent years. But the vast bulk of their sisters viewed
all this askance or with relative indifference, and indifference
decreasing slowly but steadily with the lapse of time. In those
states which have had woman suffrage the longest and most completely,
the interest and participation of the average native-born woman has
been the most general and the most intelligent.
This is, and undoubtedly will continue to be, the case with the
foreign-born woman. She will emerge from the status of a household
drudge, subject to the taboos of tradition, the circumscribing
effects of residence in a foreign land, and the various other kinds
of narrowness in her life, just so rapidly and by just so much as she
is made aware that it is to her interest to do so, is impelled by
influences from without herself, and is taught by political activity
itself to realize its practicability and value in the concrete things
of her life.
Thus far, only one or two of the foreign racial groups have, as
such, exhibited any material response to the political opportunities
opening before their women. The outstanding group is that of the
Bohemians, who for many years have been, comparatively speaking,
awake to both opportunity and duty. They have long been more
articulate politically than any others, earlier participating in
the movement for woman suffrage, and passing on in the more radical
directions. Next have come the Scandinavians, excepting the Swedes,
who seem to have been more subject to the old Teutonic conservatism
about the “place of woman.”
Generally speaking, and as might be expected under the circumscribing
influences of all kinds, the foreign-born woman has epitomized all
the spiritual, intellectual, social, and political traditions and
heritages with which immigrants come to America. The children, the
husband, the working uncles and male cousins, all mix immediately
with the civilization of the street, the factory, the shop. They
have to learn English with all possible promptness in order “to
get along.” They hear the political patter of the street corner,
they listen to the soap-box orator, they have to have some sort of
relations with the politicians in order to do business of any kind.
But the woman is shut in by the four walls of her home. If she lives,
as she mostly does, at the top of long flights of tenement-house
stairs, she is too weary to venture out where she may hear of the
wider things and doings of the world. She has no clothing in which to
go more than a stone’s throw from her door. The routine of her life
is pretty much that of a prison.
FEW WOMEN SEEK NATURALIZATION
Or, if she be unmarried, the conditions are little better so far as
concerns encouragement to be interested in political affairs. It
is only potentially that she is a factor in the political future
of the country. The fact that the statistical analysis of the
Americanization Study of more than 26,000 naturalization petitions
filed in twenty-nine courts in the fiscal year 1913-14 showed only
154 women petitioners indicates that the unmarried foreign-born
woman does not excite herself on the subject of the ballot. The real
problem of the foreign-born woman, so far as her equipment as a voter
is concerned, has reference almost entirely to the vast number of
women who are carried into citizenship and potential voting power by
the naturalization of their husbands. This is a serious matter.
The Naturalization Bureau makes much of its effort to enlist the
interest of the women, by calling their attention to the educational
opportunities in the vicinity of their homes; it may be conceded
that this has had beneficial results in general, and has been vastly
better than the former policy of ignoring the newly made woman
citizen; but even giving full value to the claims made by various
persons as to the increased interest and response of the wives of
naturalized men, the total of actual accomplishment, as against the
total of available foreign women is negligible. The plain fact of
the matter is that the foreign-born women, naturalized by the act
of their husbands in the proportion of more than sixty women to one
hundred men, pay just as much attention to the business and to their
new opportunities, as might be expected in the circumstances.
During the war it was even the subject of resentment, on the part
of the wives of alien enemies, that they were thus forced into
American citizenship regardless of their wishes or sympathies. In
many instances of the so-called “military naturalization,” elsewhere
described,[152] in which the husband had been taken regardless of
his personal sympathies, and had become, while in uniform, a citizen
under the provisions of the law which waived all questions of length
of residence, and to a great extent the other qualifications which
would have been insisted upon in ordinary times, the wife was a
rampant enemy, aggravated by the conscription of her man--and often
also of her grown sons--yet she became automatically a citizen of
the United States, regardless of length of residence, without being
required even to go through the empty form of an oath of allegiance.
Forthwith she was absolved from the necessity of registering as
an alien enemy; forthwith she became for all purposes as much an
American citizen and as much a voter potentially as any Daughter of
the American Revolution!
SOME COURTS NOTICE THE WIVES
Some of the courts--the number of such is steadily increasing--have
taken judicial notice of this extraordinary situation, and scrutinize
with substantial care the qualifications of the wife. Many of them
refuse to naturalize a man whose wife still resides in the old
country. In his report to the Commissioner of Naturalization for the
fiscal year 1918-19 Mr. Crist, as Director of Citizenship, dwells
upon this matter, quoting especially an order issued May 27, 1919, by
Judge Gustav Anderson in the Circuit Court for Baker County, Oregon,
which goes about as far as the court can go under existing law. The
text of the order, so far as this aspect of the question goes, is as
follows:
It appearing to the court that ... when married men become citizens
their wives become so also by virtue of the marriage relation, and
that it is therefore important that when a married man becomes a
citizen his wife should also be qualified for the like duties of
citizenship: it is therefore
_Ordered_ that ... such applicant who is a married man is hereby
directed to inform his wife of the foregoing provisions and to
qualify with him for such citizenship, and that, unless for
sufficient cause shown to the court it is otherwise ordered, the
wife of each married man shall attend court with her husband at
the time of the final hearing upon his petition for admission to
citizenship of the United States.
Judge George G. Bingham, in the Circuit Court for Marion County,
Oregon, previously, in September, 1918, had issued a similar
order, in which he directed that if the petitioner be married he
should be accompanied by his wife not only in applying to the
school authorities for assistance in preparation, but also in his
attendance upon the court.
Similar action in other courts is referred to by Mr. Crist in the
same report:
In one judicial district, comprising eight courts of New York
State, the Supreme Court has required that the wife of the
petitioner appear in court with the petitioner at the time of the
final hearing. In other places the question has been considered
and various steps taken. The reports show that some judges have
required a rather complete knowledge of our language and form of
government. Some of the tests have been such as merely to show that
the wife could speak English, knew the name of the President and
the number of years of his term of office, and other elementary
details. Continuances of cases have occurred where dense ignorance
of the English language is demonstrated by simple questions, such
as, “Where do you live?” and, “How many children have you?” Upon
failure to comprehend these questions the conferring of citizenship
has been deferred to a later period.
Of course, in considering the question of the appearance of the
wife some difficulties have been encountered. In numbers of cases
sickness of either the wife or the children, domestic duties at
the hour of the hearing, the necessity for bringing small children
into court or leaving them in the custody of others, represent some
of the difficulties to the easy observance of this requirement
of the courts. In the opinion of one of the judges it is well to
have the women appear in court, if for no other reason than that
it takes them out of their homes and gives them some idea of what
our government in actual operation means. After their experiences
under these circumstances, even though it be accompanied by some
sense of nervousness, the consensus of opinion appears to be that
such a requirement is not only wholesome in its effect, but quite
necessary.
OBSTACLES OF DISTANCE AND EXPENSE
The Director of Citizenship does not mention one of the most serious
difficulties in the way of a general practice of this kind,
operating in sparsely settled districts; that is, the matter of
expense. When a man has to transport himself and his two witnesses
anywhere from twenty to two hundred miles, pay not only their cost
of transportation, but usually their wages for time lost, to say
nothing of his own loss of wages or time, or anything paid as extra
compensation to the witnesses, and this _twice within the space of
some ninety days_, the necessity of adding the cost of taking also
his wife becomes serious if not prohibitive. And in most cases, in
city or country alike, a young mother is so tied down by the routine
of domestic duties, care of infants, etc., that a considerable
absence from home is flatly impossible. If, in addition to this, she
has no interest in the matter, or is frankly hostile, it is likely to
mean that she will not go to court, and her husband’s petition may be
denied for “want of prosecution.”
The Naturalization Bureau and the courts have done all they can under
existing law to bring to bear upon the foreign-born woman who will be
made a citizen by the naturalization of her husband the influences
tending to awaken in her a sense of her opportunity, privileges,
and obligations. Strictly speaking, the court has no lawful right
to summon a woman from her domestic duties to be a party to her
husband’s naturalization. The spirit of the law of substantially all
countries from time immemorial has been to regard the citizenship of
a woman as merely incidental to that of her husband. There was little
or no necessity or reason for her to play any part in the business as
an individual. She became American with her man, just as his goods
and chattels did. No political activity or responsibility on her part
was implied. And she, if she were an American by birth, or a widow
Americanized by the citizenship of her deceased husband, would lose
her citizenship instanter upon her marriage with an alien here or
elsewhere.
WOMAN SUFFRAGE OPENS A NEW ERA
Woman suffrage entirely alters the situation. Now she becomes,
at least potentially, a political factor in her own right as an
individual. No longer may her fitness, or her probable action as a
voter, be in any way assumed from that of her husband. He becomes a
citizen by a process presumed to search out his qualifications, and
after preparation designed to perfect them. The law has provided
hitherto no process by which hers may be adequately ascertained. Yet
her vote, her political action in any respect, may aggravate the evil
embodied in his by duplicating it; may cancel all the public benefit
embodied in his by her opposing action.
Whatever may have been said in the past, it is hard to find any
argument adequate on the whole for continuing this antediluvian
principle and process. Every adult individual should come into or
stay out of voting rights on his own merits, and not otherwise. It
may well be argued that even minors as young as sixteen years should
not come into citizenship by the act of their parents, so far as
concerns their becoming voters at twenty-one, without act of their
own.
The voice of naturalizing judges all over the country, who have
expressed themselves on this subject, is preponderantly in favor of
a radical change in policy. The Naturalization Bureau does not go
so far, but stresses what it regards as the need of an educational
test of the wife as a condition precedent to the naturalization of
the husband. In his report for year ending June 30, 1919, to the
Commissioner of Naturalization, Mr. Crist says:
It would seem to be advisable to have some restrictive measure
provided in the admission to citizenship that would condition the
admission of a married man to the responsibilities of citizenship
upon the qualifying of his wife.... Since the local educational
authorities are both willing and anxious to afford these women, as
well as their husbands, every educational facility and opportunity,
a requirement of an educational nature would not seem to be unjust.
This would be pretty drastic, and almost put the husband in the
same position that the wife is in now--making _his_ citizenship
dependent upon _her_ fitness! The trouble is not that the wives
of the naturalized males are ignorant or unfit, but that they are
automatically made into voters regardless of their fitness. Why
penalize the man? Why not devise a way of enfranchising him, if fit,
while withholding the ballot from her, if unfit?
OPINIONS OF NATURALIZING JUDGES
The judges see it more directly. The Americanization Study addressed
a questionnaire to all of the naturalizing judges, containing two
questions on this subject:
_First_--Would you favor legislation to permit the naturalization
of a married woman in her own name, if personally acceptable,
regardless of the alienage of her husband, or his failure to obtain
or refusal to seek naturalization?
_Second_--Would you favor reserving to a native-born American
woman, if she desired it, the American citizenship which, under the
present law, she sacrifices by marriage to a foreigner?
It is impossible to tabulate the answers, because of the many cases
in which the judges advance qualifications preventing their replies
from being classed as categorical; but generally it may be said that
of 333 replies to the first question, 204, or nearly two-thirds,
are in the affirmative, 104 are in the, negative, and 25 are
noncommittal, uncertain, or so qualified as to represent doubt.
To the second question, of 364 replies, 220, again not quite
two-thirds, are in the affirmative, 127, or almost exactly one-third,
in the negative, and 17 noncommittal. Curiously enough, many of those
who answer “Yes” to the first question answer “No” to the second, and
a large number would condition their affirmative to both questions
upon the woman’s permanent domicile in this country. Of those who
vote “No” on the second point many express the sentiment:
If an American woman isn’t satisfied to marry an American man, let
her lose her citizenship.
A somewhat conspicuous fact is that, generally speaking, the judges
of the East and South are opposed to any change in the law to admit
women on their individual responsibility or to save citizenship for
American women marrying immigrants, while those of the West generally
favor both--especially the former proposal.
“The law looks upon a married couple as _one_,” says a New Jersey
judge, “and I do not think it would be good public policy to split
their nationality.”
“It would introduce great confusion in certain parts of the law,”
objects a Federal judge in New England.
“We favor no such pussy-willow policy,” answers one Ohio judge,
who, by the way, would require “twenty-one years’ continuous
residence,” admit at all “only heads of families with children,”
and generally “make it harder for foreigners to become naturalized.”
“Few men,” objects a judge in Indiana, “would feel right toward
either the government or his wife (_sic_). Few men have reached
that stage of mind where he would be satisfied with such
preference.”
“With the husband of one nationality, and the wife of another, what
would be the nationality of the children?” demands a New Jersey
judge. “What laws would govern the taking of personal property or
the inheritance of real estate? A citizen married woman might have
an alien enemy husband!”
A Federal judge in Maryland dwells upon the physical fact, that
the children are a joint product, even though husband and wife
are separate individuals. And he seems to think that both of the
questions imply the opening of large danger, in respect of the
enforcement of Chinese and Japanese exclusion, though he does not say
why or how such a peril would arise.
From a Texas judge and many others come warnings that such a policy
would give rise to endless domestic friction. An Alabama judge would
cut round this by permitting the woman’s declaration of her desire to
be or remain an American citizen, notwithstanding the alienage of her
husband, to naturalize her minor children.
The general trend of opinion among the judges is to the effect that
the institution of woman suffrage has abolished the old idea that the
wife must accept her politics from her husband. As one Nebraska judge
puts it:
It is an outrage that the status of the wife should be influenced
by that of the husband. A man and wife are two; we long since
departed from the theory that they are one.
650,000 “DERIVATIVE VOTERS” EXTANT
The logic of the situation in which we find ourselves seems
inexorable. Whatever the theory upon which a woman takes the
nationality of her husband, the fact is that once she has been
naturalized and become available as a voter, she is potentially as
much a force for good or ill politically as he. However much pains
may have been taken to ascertain and certify his fitness, she comes
in substantially without examination, without any of the precautions
which are at least presumed to protect the ballot box from unfit or
unworthy approach.
The Commissioner of Naturalization reported[153] at the end of the
year 1918-19, that, during the thirteen years since the enactment of
the law of 1906, the total number of certificates of naturalization
issued had been 1,079,459. If it be correct to assume that 60 or more
women are swept into citizenship with every 100 certificates, this
would mean that during those thirteen years something like 650,000
individuals, available as voters wherever woman suffrage prevails
(subject to the five-year-residence limitation in certain states),
have been automatically made citizens regardless of any fitness or
volition of their own. And this says nothing of the additional future
voters added through the automatic naturalization of children. In his
previous report Commissioner Campbell said:[154]
Since 1906 there have been 861,819 who have been admitted to
citizenship upon direct application, and an equal number of
wives and children have derived citizenship from the act of the
petitioner. Following this average through, and the average has
been higher down to and including the last fiscal year, it will be
seen that about 1,250,000 have had the title conferred upon them
without justifying the nation in any belief that its ability for
self-government has been increased thereby.
LARGELY AN IGNORANT VOTE
We are dealing now, however, chiefly with the question of the married
women, mothers and housewives, who are or now have been herded into
the mass of voting citizens without volition or substantial interest
or appreciation on their part. The children, particularly those under
sixteen, may be left to the process of the schools and their general
absorption into the life of the streets and the contacts of social
life which quickly teach them not only the English language, but
some sense of what it means to be American. In no appreciable degree
are the adult women subjected to this Americanizing process.
In the vast majority of cases, the potential vote thus added is an
uninformed and often ignorant vote. Its characteristics are well
summarized in a memorandum prepared by Miss Cornelia Marvin, State
Librarian of Oregon, in the course of which she says:
Women are left behind in intelligence by the fathers and children.
They do not learn English, they do not keep up with the other
members of their families who are constantly in touch with
Americans, and there is frequently the tragedy of the mother of
the family who cannot read English and cannot understand the
conversation in English which goes on about her. She is a “back
number,” and as such cannot be an effective citizen.
Women may, and undoubtedly will be, voted in herds, quite
ignorantly, and so will be a menace--if they vote at all. This
cannot be prevented entirely by naturalization, but a woman who has
gone through the naturalization ceremony, who has prepared herself
for the examination, and who has taken the oath of allegiance, will
not be so easy a subject for the unscrupulous.
It is dangerous in war times to have alien enemies who are unknown
as such. During the last year or two there have been cases of
people who were enemies to our country, who swore that they were
naturalized against their wills by the acts of their husbands; that
they never had any desire to become American citizens.
It is inconvenient at present for women not to have their own
certificates of naturalization, as, at the time of registering
for election, and in some other cases, it is necessary to present
evidence of citizenship, and the woman must present her husband’s
certificate of naturalization. The Bureau of Naturalization
proposes that a woman may receive an honorary certificate chiefly
to remedy this.
Not being required to go through the naturalization ceremony
the women miss the opportunity for education, and we miss the
opportunity to stimulate and educate them through the preparation
for the examination, and through the ceremony.
If women should become naturalized through their own acts, they
will prepare for the examination, and they will undoubtedly urge
on backward husbands. Often it would be a great advantage to have
the wife studying for the examination at the same time, as she
ordinarily has more leisure than the husband who, after a hard
working day, needs the stimulus of his wife’s interest in order to
apply himself to the history and laws necessary for him to acquire
before his appearance in court.
Possibly [Miss Marvin adds], if we open the opportunity to foreign
women through the naturalization process, the time will come when
American-born women, arriving at the age when they may vote, will
take the oath and will go through some dignified ceremony which
will impress upon them their responsibility as citizens.
Still remains, regardless of any steps which may be taken in the
future, a great mass of woman citizenry, to be reached by some
process of education at least designed to awaken these potential
voters to a sense of their privileges and their obligations. How may
this be done?
POLITICAL INDIFFERENCE NOT PECULIAR TO FOREIGN BORN
Their mere indifference to politics hardly can be urged against
them. Our own people are notorious sinners in this respect. The
Commissioner of Naturalization repeats ancient history when he
says:[155]
Surveys have been made from time to time to ascertain the
participation in the various rights of American citizenship by
native, and foreign-born citizens. In one large city a survey
showed that of the first seven prominent business men approached
none had registered. Of the 80 preachers who were requested to
state whether they had voted or registered, 12 had registered and
6 of them had voted. Among the foreign-born citizens and newly
naturalized 97 had registered and voted.
But these voters were men. Nearly all of the statistics on which
generalizations have been based deal with “foreign-born males of
voting age.” The statistics of over 26,000 naturalization petitions
gathered by the Americanization Study deal almost exclusively with
men, save as they show that every ten certificates bring into
citizenship more than six married women and more than three minors.
With the ratification of the Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution,
these six or more married women acquire the ballot. In many states
they had it long before that. What about them?
MANY WERE CALLED, BUT FEW RESPONDED
With enthusiasm entirely commendable, the Naturalization Bureau
describes its efforts to arouse in the foreign-born seekers after
citizenship an interest in the opportunity before them, by notifying
each candidate, declarant, or final petitioner, of the school
privileges available for him. In the report of the Bureau for 1916,
the Commissioner says:[156]
During the year, for the purpose of including the wife in this
citizenship-betterment campaign by the public schools, the bureau
wrote a special letter personally addressed to the wives of 49,094
petitioners and declarants, telling them of the advantages which
would result from their attendance upon the public schools. The
name of each wife was also sent, upon an individual card, to the
public school in the community where the candidate lived. This
inclusion of the wife in the scope of this activity was to enable
her to get some conception of the meaning of an American home and
aid her in establishing it for her family.... Intense interest is
manifested upon the part of these wives and mothers, as in many
instances they bring their babies to the schoolroom and while they
sleep the mothers devote their time to learning to read, speak,
and write our tongue in addition to receiving instruction in the
more domestic subjects. In order to insure extending this influence
to the wife of every declarant the bureau, with the approval of
the department of labor, changed the form of the declaration of
intention so as to require the inclusion of the name of the wife
therein, no provision having been made for her name in the form as
originally prepared. Approximately a quarter of a million women
of foreign allegiance will be thus brought within the province of
the Bureau of Naturalization through the filing of declarations of
intention and petitions for naturalization by their husbands.
Well, this is all very fine as rhetoric and the expression of pious
wishes. But what comes of it in reality? An elaborate table in the
report for 1919[157] shows that in the fiscal year ended June 30th
the names of 108,395 wives of candidates were furnished to the school
authorities in cities and towns showing a total population of nearly
35,000,000 people with a “foreign-born white male of voting age”
population of more than 4,400,000. And on the next page are tabulated
reports of 166 school superintendents as to classes for foreign-born
persons in English and citizenship, showing:
TABLE XXXVI
MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT IN CITIZENSHIP AND ENGLISH CLASSES IN THE UNITED
STATES IN 1919
===========================================
Men | 11,854
Women | 2,733
Unclassified | 1,287
----------------------------+----------
Total | 15,874
===========================================
Every bit of it valuable, no doubt. Presumably, also, the complete
figures would present a much larger total, but, as an exhibit of
goods, it is hardly up to the promises of the show window!
FOREIGN-BORN WOMEN WITHOUT POLITICAL EXPERIENCE
The fact is that the married women of foreign birth, who are made
citizens by the naturalization of their husbands, have had, as a
whole, not the slightest practical interest in any stage of the
business. In the old country from which they came they had, as a
rule, no participation in government; the traditions of the society
in which the majority of them grew up relegated women to domestic
employments, made them subordinate to their husbands in every phase
of public life; they have been slow to learn the language here,
and the proposal that they go to school in order to fit themselves
for a function about which they know nothing and care less meets
with little enthusiasm on their part--as the statistics of the
Naturalization Bureau plainly show.
The intelligent woman’s advent to politics always has been dreaded
by the professional politician. He felt it in his bones that she
might not have the political superstitions and docility that have
been exhibited by the average male voter; she might ask questions and
display initiative; she might remember with an eye to reprisals the
things that politicians, legislators, and executives have done to the
interests of women in ages past. He grew eloquent about the “place of
woman in the home,” the demoralizing atmosphere of the polling place,
and so on. And, as for the foreign-born woman, he knew, first, that
the foreign-born husband as a rule was opposed to having his wife and
daughters meddling in such matters, and second, that all she would
do, anyway, would be to duplicate the vote of her husband or father.
THEY ARE GOOD MATERIAL
As has been said, very few of the foreign-born women, made citizens
and voters by the naturalization of men, thus far have displayed much
interest in politics. Where there has been participation by them,
what has been their attitude? There is not much testimony on the
subject, but what there is is largely to identical effect.
The rule is [says an investigator at Los Angeles] that the wives
follow the party allegiance of their husbands, and vote with them.
The more intelligent, however, often think and act independently,
voting for what they believe is the good of their children. The
parents of the public-school children teach them to follow the
guidance and advice of the teachers. I myself, as one of the
accredited speakers of the Parent Teachers’ Federation of Los
Angeles, have marked hundreds of ballots for foreign women, and I
am called up on the telephone before each election and questioned
about candidates and measures. As a rule my advice is taken without
question. The foreign woman acts in such matters according to her
individual nature and her intelligent understanding. Some of them
vote secretly because their husbands have forbidden them to go to
the polls.
Miss Jane Addams, whose long and intimate acquaintance with
foreign-born women, through her protracted residence in Hull House,
Chicago, entitles her to speak with peculiar authority, describes a
typical experience at a polling place in the Hull House neighborhood,
which is populated almost entirely by immigrant families:
It was a great satisfaction to me to see what good judgment the
women showed. There was one Irishwoman, very bright, who could
not read, and therefore I was allowed to go into the booth with
her to help her mark her ballot. The first proposition was about
bonds for a new hospital. The Irishwoman said, “Is the same bunch
to spend the money that run the hospital we have now? Then I am
against it.” The next proposition was about a subway; the next
about a hospital for contagious cases, and so on. There were ten
propositions to be acted upon. I was scrupulous not to influence
her; yet on nine of them she voted, from her own common sense, just
as the Municipal League and the City Club had recommended as the
result of painstaking research. Italian women came in to vote who
knew more about our city than their husbands, who were away digging
railroads during six or nine months of the year.
Mrs. Emma Smith Devoe, President of the National Council of Women
Voters,[158] describes the foreign-born woman citizen as taking in
governmental affairs, as soon as she realizes that she is a voter, a
most serious and conscientious interest, “making almost a religious
duty of it.” The women, she says “are particularly impressed with the
sacredness of the ballot, and they always vote for the betterment of
humanity as they see it.”
Almost every foreign woman’s vote [says Mrs. Lucy B. Johnstone,
wife of the Chief Justice of Kansas][159] “represents a home where
there are children who are going to the public schools now and fast
becoming Americanized. The foreign-born women are, in the main,
ambitious for their children, and for that reason are learning,
in their way, about our institutions, and are zealous to take
advantage of our free educational opportunities”.
Senator Helen Ring Robinson of Colorado remarking that “the Italian
women frequently do not vote, while the Pole always votes and takes
a keen interest in local politics,” says:[160]
In the matters affecting the family purse, such as voting of a
bond issue, the acquisition of the water supply by the city, etc.,
I find the immigrant woman usually more keenly concerned than her
husband.
The immigrant woman in the coal camps--like the immigrant
man--often votes blindly at the dictate of the boss; but the
daughter of the immigrant woman often shows an independence, an
understanding, and a vision, in matters of public concern, well
worth the emulation of Daughters of the American Revolution I wot
of--and Colonial Dames. It is the daughter of the immigrant woman,
grown to the full stature of citizenship, who is proving one of the
most useful elements in our Colorado electorate.
Miss Edith Knight Holmes, editor of the Woman’s Department of the
Portland _Oregonian_, wrote that:
Personally, I have noticed women who were born in various European
countries going early in the morning to vote, as soon as the
breakfast was over. They study their ballots carefully and seem
most conscientious in marking them. I know an old Scotch lady who
sat up half the night to study her ballot. A little English lady
whom I know always tries to be at the polls. She goes with one of
her sons to vote.
In families where there are several little children, sometimes the
mother next door will stay with the babies while the mother of
the family votes, and then when she returns she takes care of her
friend’s baby while she, too, casts her vote.
Of course, this is special pleading, and it is easy to exaggerate.
Over against it might well be told that ancient story of the
housemaid who was said to favor woman suffrage on the ground that it
would augment the family income:
My father and my two brothers each gets five dollars for his vote,
and now mother and me will each get five--that makes twenty-five
dollars, all for a little while in one day.
The fact is, abundantly verified, that the foreign-born woman, when
she votes at all, brings to the function a deep sense of solemnity;
it is new to her to participate in government; she has not acquired
from the streets a cynical contempt for the ballot, as her husband
and sons are likely to have done. The effect of government upon her
home and her children is a more desperate matter to her, and it will
take long to demoralize her attitude on the subject.
But the fact is, also, that foreign-born women have not in any large
measure awakened to the opportunity. Their devotion to their homes
has taken on no public or political aspect. They are confined to
those homes, not only by tradition, ignorance of American life and
the English language, and the inertia of their existence, but even
more by overwork and by the unremitting detail of family duty and
care. They have hardly heard of their new and increasing privileges,
and generally regard them, when they do hear of them, as only a new
burden, unfamiliar and to be ignored if not resented. It is only in
the home, and by a realization of its direct and inevitable effect
upon the home, her home, that any interest in or enthusiasm about
political action can reach her.
HOW THE WOMEN CAN BE REACHED
There would seem to be four ways in which the foreign-born woman
citizen can be reached with effort to interest her in the political
aspect of her citizenship:
1. The normal, direct attack of the political organizations, and
voluntary efforts, organized and unorganized, of public-spirited
citizens or others interested in “getting out the vote.” Generally
speaking, the politicians have scarcely as yet discovered the voting
power of the foreign-born woman citizen--especially such as do not
speak the English language. The vote and political influence of the
foreign-born woman have been negligible everywhere--except possibly
in a few places where they have been rallied in a local-option
election. One investigator reports two or three towns in Illinois
where a “wet” result was attributed to the vote of foreign-born
women. Other reports would indicate that the foreign-born woman, like
her English-speaking sisters, have tended to favor the abolition of
the saloon with its resulting (or, anyway, expected) reduction of
home-coming drunkenness and deductions from the pay envelope.
In districts where politically active social settlements and
similar organizations are influential, and in states which have
had woman suffrage the longest, there is a considerable appearance
of foreign-born women at the polls. But they are relatively few
in numbers, and consist of younger women from the more radical
parties, from those racial groups which display the keenest and most
aggressive social intelligence, such as the Bohemians, and from such
as in their own countries have had some experience with some measure
of woman suffrage, such as the Swedes and Finns. There is quite as
much tendency among foreign-born women as among native-born--perhaps
considerably more--to follow the husband’s lead in politics and to
duplicate his vote. In general, the political organizations have as
yet made little effort to capitalize the “derivative vote.” The mass
of it stays at home.
2. The campaign of the public schools, with or without the
inspiration of the Naturalization Bureau, to induce the foreign-born
woman to avail herself of formal educational work in the schools.
As we have seen, she does not, to any appreciable extent, respond
to this campaign. Social settlements, even attributing great
influence to them--though as a matter of fact few of them exert any
political influence whatever--are relatively few and far between;
churches, as such, and other institutions of the same general kind,
cannot be counted as substantially effective in this direction. The
foreign-born woman goes to church in large numbers, but she does not
get there any great impulse to interest herself in community affairs.
She goes back to her babies and her washtub.
It is in her home, in the intervals between domestic duties and
within arm’s length of the cradle and the kitchen table where she
feeds her children, that she must be reached with this inspiration
and instruction, if in any large measure she is to be reached at all.
This brings us to
3. The Home Teacher. The movement in favor of the creation of a
teaching force, employed by the public and organically a part of
the public-school system, to go into the neighborhoods and into the
homes and carry instruction in English, common-school branches, and
the elements of civics, follows logically from the treatment of the
foreign-born woman citizen as an individual, and from the fact that
she must be dealt with in or close to her home. Classes grouped
within a small section of a neighborhood, intensively instructed
by teachers who realize the difficulties and limitations of their
pupils, take on the aspect of social occasions, help to arouse
a neighborhood spirit, encourage mutual acquaintance, and most
effectively instruct those whom it is desired to reach. A movement
of this kind, spreading over the country and backed by the public as
such, follows the natural line of least resistance and tackles the
problem where it really lives.
4. The direct and indirect influence of the children upon the mother.
This is the best of all. And, while we are exciting ourselves about
the ignorance and indifference of the foreign-born woman, and
bemoaning her possible influence upon her children, it is well for us
to remember that these children are in the American public schools,
talking the English language, absorbing whatever there may be of
“Americanism” in the social atmosphere about them, in daily sight of
the Stars and Stripes, singing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” gaining
enthusiasm for and pride in our country, and, what is most important,
taking home daily to their foreign-born parents the direct and
indirect influences of what they are learning, seeing, and feeling.
The extent of this leavening process is impossible to estimate, but
undoubtedly it is enormous.
A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE--IT WORKS
Perhaps the most striking and unmistakable exhibit of this process is
to be found in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, where the work of
the Americanization Society presents concrete and visible results.
The work in process there since the fall of 1918 is susceptible of
definite and even statistical study. It has produced effects upon
elections which can be stated in figures, and results in homes upon
concretely discoverable human beings about which there can be no
question. It is socially physiological, so to speak; working in a
normal way in consonance with known political methods and customs,
along the rational lines of least resistance--making use of the
natural, spontaneous life of the people in their ordinary social and
political relationships and in their homes.
A battle with machine politics over a matter of local administration,
especially as affecting the treatment of the poor, convinced those
interested in the unselfish conduct of the city’s business that the
way to win, and the only way, was to appeal to the people direct and
get them to vote. There was no fear as to how they would vote, but
the effort was not addressed to that aspect of the question. The
slogans speak for themselves!
Whether or not you vote is not your business; it is Uncle Sam’s
business. HOW you vote is your business.
It’s always safe to trust all the people. If all the people vote,
they will vote right.
Cast your own ballot. When you don’t vote, somebody else votes for
you.
How many votes has a man? You say one. If you don’t vote somebody
else has TWO votes.
Tags were the weapons directly used, and they had a profound effect.
Committees of women, drawn from mothers’ clubs, women’s clubs,
parents’ associations, etc., gave out the tags at the polls, asked
the voters to wear them, and pinned them on when they could. The only
way to get a tag was to vote; everybody who voted found it to his
interest to wear one; and those who didn’t have tags wished they had.
For the tag said:
“I am an American. I voted. Did you?”
The effectiveness of these tactics in arousing not only sentimental
enthusiasm, but that kind of practical personal action _at and in the
ballot box_ which decides elections, is convincingly attested by the
great increase in the registration and in the total vote.[161]
The essential purpose of the job was to get to the polls every
individual entitled to vote; but incidentally, or perhaps better
to say, fundamentally, to train the rising generation as to their
privilege and duty of participation in public affairs, and to
accelerate the naturalization and Americanization of the alien.
In order to accomplish the first of these last two purposes, the
campaign was carried into the public schools; in order to accomplish
the second, great stress was laid upon naturalization. There were
three other slogans:
Send the alien to the county clerk.
An early tag helps the flag.
Get your tag early. Ask the man who has none WHY?
This meant embarrassment for the untagged, and when the school
children began to plague the untagged adult males it became
unendurable. Woe to that father who came home at night without a tag!
The family was disgraced in the eyes of the children. He was nagged,
not about _how_ he voted, but about why he didn’t vote at all!
Meanwhile, woman suffrage was established in Michigan, and the women
came in for their share of the bombardment. A great campaign was
begun to make the women realize their political responsibilities.
It bore fruit in the registration of 26,000 women for the election
in April, 1919; in one day 1,500 women registered. For the primary
election in March the tag system got out 28,700 votes, and it was
estimated that a blizzard raging on that day prevented at least 3,000
more. At the April election all the candidates recommended by the
Citizens’ League were elected, although the tag system involved no
pressure as to particular candidates or causes. There were thirteen
different matters to be voted upon, and the result showed notable
discrimination in the voting--by 37,000 voters, while from 5,000 to
7,000 votes could not be cast because of inadequacy of the polling
facilities.
WHAT THE CHILDREN DID
The children were a vital factor in the campaign. After the elections
they were asked to collect tags and bring them to school. Out of
29,000 tags given out at one election, they brought back more than
17,000. After the next election they brought back 27,000 out of
37,000. Flags were given as prizes to the schools showing the highest
totals.
In the schools--and all schools were enlisted, parochial and
private as well as public schools--the children wrote letters, and
later little essays, describing their experiences, telling why it
was important to vote, and what the issues were. The response was
instantaneous, enthusiastic; and it requires no special imagination
to infer the effect in individual homes, not only in compelling
American citizens to vote, but in virtually forcing alien fathers and
mothers to avoid embarrassment at their own firesides by expediting
their efforts to gain citizenship.
Space is not available for extensive quotation of the children’s
essays; but their general tenor, and the reflex influence of their
spirit upon the homes, may be imagined from such excerpts as these:
By an eleven-year-old boy, fifth grade: The men and women who are
citizens of the United States are regular voters; if they are not,
they should be.... If all the people voted, we should have a clean
city. If your mother has to do all the dishes, you can say, “Why,
mother, I can do the dishes while you go and vote.” Your father may
have to rake the yard. Why not rake the yard yourself and let your
father go and vote? Then the children and their parents will be
good citizens.
By a girl in the sixth grade: The American government is governed
by the people by means of voting. If people do not vote it is their
fault that we have poor officials.... The anarchist and the other
people who ignore our government are both destroying it, only the
anarchist destroys it violently and the people who ignore it,
slowly. Some aliens come here to enjoy all our privileges without
becoming citizens. They save their money and go back to their old
country. But some aliens appreciate our government, and are now
of the best citizens we have.... Join hands with the American
government. Mother, do not let Dad do it alone!
There is plenty of direct testimony as to the effect of this
enterprise in the home, not only of the American citizens, but of
the aliens. Thousands of mothers who otherwise might have remained
prisoners to indifference and drudgery have been fairly driven out
into the liberation of social contacts and into a broader life of
interest in all the things that make for responsible citizenship _by
the interest of their children_.
It is _in their homes_ that the foreign-born women must be reached
with inspiration and enlightenment as to their part in the process of
self-government and the privileges, duties, and responsibilities--and
activities--which are essential to anything worthy to be called
American citizenship.
XI
THE FOREIGN-BORN VOTER IN ACTION
There is not and never has been in the United States anything that
could be segregated as the “labor vote,” although such a thing has
been the dream of many labor leaders, the bugaboo--or rather the
_ignis fatuus_--of politicians of many parties, and a permanently
legendary figure in the popular speech. The absence of such a vote
is the principle reason for the political futility of most of the
efforts of the Socialist parties.
Time and again, since the beginning of our existence as a nation,
efforts--some of them with a measure of success promising or menacing
according to one’s sympathy and point of view--have been made to
get united political action on the part of citizens who worked with
their hands as supposedly distinguished from those who worked with
their brains. The effort never has come to other than temporary
local success; although it may be conceded that, in some measure,
the issues upon which the efforts were predicated afterward came to
be those upon which the great parties fought out their battles; or,
more likely, came slowly to substantial acceptance through economic
development or sometimes as the direct fruit of campaign agitation.
The reasons for this failure to precipitate and organize the mythical
“labor vote” are many and diverse, but certain of them are essential
and fairly evident:
First, the fact that in this country social and industrial conditions
have hitherto been, and probably for an indefinite period will
continue to be, such as to emphasize individualism. It is true,
despite any denials or theories, that industry, initiative,
enterprise, always have won, still win, and will continue to win
advancement above the herd. The top is still open for those who can
win to it by their own inherent qualities. There has been here, there
is now, no permanent industrial or social caste classification to
circumscribe ambition and create either a persisting intellectual
leadership of “labor” or a stable body of hand-workers susceptible
of political coherence or direction. All efforts to crystallize
“class consciousness” for political action have failed, and probably
will continue to fail as long as the social bars are down so that
individuals can pass freely from one class to another.
Second, the immensity of our territory and the great diversity of
interests and issues in the forefront of public attention in one
section and another. Seldom, if ever, have the conditions which might
have solidified any class been sufficiently widespread or synchronous
to serve the purpose of united political sentiment or action. Add to
this the fact that politicians of both the great parties, more or
less intentionally, have managed always to frame the issues so as to
encourage this diversity.
Third, the deliberate and long-standing policy of the most
influential of the general leaders of the labor organizations--Mr.
Samuel Gompers for the most conspicuous example--of keeping those
organizations free from the entanglements and distractions of party
politics, definitely preventing their acting as a political unit; by
intention confining their activities to the industrial, the economic
field. This alone, without regard to the fact that the higher-grade
unions (using that expression solely with reference to skill) seldom
see their interests to be common, so far as the ballot box is
concerned. The radical agitation for the establishment of “One Big
Union,” to include all classes of laborers as distinguished from
capitalists, while it contemplates chiefly the exercise of industrial
and economic power, includes the intention to concentrate political
power as well.
Fourth, and most important, the fact that “labor,” in the sense in
which most politicians, and virtually all of the public, use the
term, means chiefly the _unskilled_ workers who contribute _muscle_
to industry. These are to a great extent unorganized, without any
conscious unity of interest or purpose; their approach to both
industry and political action is as individuals--individuals of
more or less shifting residence and comparatively little feeling
of political responsibility. Moreover, it is a matter of common
knowledge that the great industrial concerns have fostered the
existence of masses of unskilled labor, in excess of the actual needs
of industry, in order to maintain an “overstocked” labor supply,
for the purpose of constant wage-competition to keep down costs.
This competition has the inevitable effect of discouraging united
action of any kind. And, still further, we have found[162] that the
unskilled laborer of foreign birth, on the average, is not available
for political activity because he is not naturalized.
This body of the unskilled, industrially indispensable, but
politically unassimilated, inarticulate, and unwholesome,
consists almost entirely now, and must consist increasingly,
of immigrants. Like any other mass of material in an organism,
potentially digestible and useful but actually undigested and in
the circumstances indigestible, it has clogged the process of
assimilation and is infecting the body politic with dangerous toxins.
The wonder is that we have got along with it so well. One of the
reasons may be the very fact that its influences are not in the
ordinary sense _political_.
Foreigners: the word is used advisedly. For out of the welter of
prejudice and misinformation surrounding the subject has emerged
clearly the fact that by the time the alien _man_ reaches the point
of applying for citizenship and the political power that goes with
it, he has been in this country _upward of ten years_, has advanced
materially in social and economic status, and the process of
assimilation is far on its way, if not substantially complete. In
a majority of cases, he has passed out of the category of what is
usually known as “common labor.”
DIVIDED BY RACIAL TRADITIONS
Another thing, conspicuous here as in no other country where “labor”
might be regarded as directly a political factor, is the fact that
even had these thousands of men been individually available for
prompt assimilation, or manageable in their groups as material for
political manipulation, they have constituted such a hodge-podge
of conflicting racial and national antecedents, prejudices, and
inhibitions that any coherent political action by them always has
been out of the question. Scandinavian and Slav, Austrian and
Italian, British and German, Greek and Turk; Protestant and Catholic,
Jew and Gentile--to say nothing of those smaller clan, village,
and even family feuds, often of long-forgotten origin, within the
racial groups ... at every turn some hoary animosity, born, perhaps,
centuries ago out of historic or obscure conflicts of which the
average native-born American maybe never heard in his life, has kept
and doubtless long will continue to keep these racial groups apart
and practically preclude any possibility of getting them to work
together. The events and political by-products of the World War have
only further confused and intensified these causes of disunion.
The Socialists alone, of all the considerable political parties, have
tried to unite “labor” (chiefly meaning unskilled labor) by efforts
to convince all the racial groups of a common political interest
superior to any racial interest. They have almost completely failed.
Politicians, large and small, have been to some extent aware of
this diversity of traditions and interests among the racial groups,
based upon ancient or current controversies in old countries; but
their approach to the subject always has been pragmatical and
opportunistic, and usually unintelligent without real information
about or understanding of the explosive matters with which they
were meddling, or any but temporary or local concern about the
consequences. The Fiume controversy, interesting both Italians and
Jugo-Slavs; the Irish situation; the war between the Poles and the
Bolsheviki in Russia; and conspicuously the whole stupendous question
of the League of Nations--all are fine examples of international and
interracial conflicts and emergencies of which American politicians
of both parties have taken advantage for their own purposes without
regard to consequences to the welfare of the world--or of their own
country, for that matter.
ALIENS NOT WITHOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE
As we have seen, the foreign born who become citizens, and as such
are eligible to participate in our political processes, do so on
the average only after a residence in this country of more than
ten years. Also, notwithstanding the legend to the contrary, there
appears to be no material distinction of race in their interest in
our politics or their desire to become citizens. But it would be a
cardinal mistake to suppose that the great mass of the unnaturalized
foreign born, who have no votes themselves, represent no political
influence. Neighborhood sentiment is a very great force in politics.
The politician pays special heed to the wishes of voters; but he
is exceedingly mindful of the desires, enthusiasms, and hatreds of
those in his district who are audible all the year round. This is
all the more true when he is of the same racial origin as the bulk
of the population that surrounds him in a “Little Italy,” a “Little
Hungary,” a “New Bohemia,” or a “Ghetto.”
THERE IS NO “FOREIGN VOTE”
What we have said of the mythical “labor vote” is equally true of
the mythical “foreign vote.” Under circumstances of tense feeling
between Italians and Jugo-Slavs, between Irish and English-born,
between Swedes and Norwegians, the vote of Italian-born citizens
and those of Serbian antecedents cannot be corralled together for
a candidate of either racial origin, or for a ticket representing
sympathy or tolerance for either, and so on down the lines; but no
politician ever has been able to unite in one political movement all
the heterogeneous mass that could, by any stretch of words, be called
the “foreign vote.” There is no “foreign vote,” any more than there
is a “labor vote.”
The wholesale enfranchisement of women, native and foreign-born
citizens alike, under the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, brings into the situation a new and confusing
factor, about which it would be perilous to prophesy. Foreign-born
women, largely ignorant of everything that we are accustomed
to regard as “American,” subject to all of the influences and
limitations involved in the word “foreign,” are swept by our
naturalization laws helter-skelter into citizenship by the mere fact
of their marriage or filial relation to a naturalized man, without
any restrictions as to length of residence or personal fitness. And
now the constitutional amendment has armed them with the ballot, with
the potential capacity not only to strengthen, but to offset and
nullify, the vote of the intelligent; not only to offset and nullify,
but to double the political power of the ignorant, the misled, and
the corrupt. Fortunately, however, as we have pointed out elsewhere,
this is a potential rather than an actual peril. The foreign-born
woman is, and will continue to be, very slow in assuming the power
for mischief, or for good, which we have thrust upon her.[163]
OLD EVILS ABOLISHED
There was a day in American political history when, especially in
the great cities along the Atlantic seaboard, the immigrant, in many
cases the newly landed immigrant, was herded to the ballot box,
sometimes without even the empty formality of naturalization, to cast
an open ballot thrust into his hand by his padrone or some one else
of his race who saw to it that he got his pay, usually in cash, but
sometimes in the form of a job. Such practices, while they survive
sporadically in out-of-the-way mining regions or the like where
supervision of elections is lax or lacking, are no longer in vogue.
The naturalization law of 1906, faithfully executed by the
Naturalization Bureau, has completely abolished the old
naturalization frauds and abuses, and the increasingly effective
protection surrounding the ballot box, with the substitution of
official ballots for the old voting ticket or open ballot, with more
or less of the nonpartisan, alphabetical arrangement of candidates
known as the “Australian” ballot, has made direct corruption, vote
buying, not only perilous as a form of crime, but relatively useless
because of the difficulty of knowing whether the goods are delivered.
There is still bribery, but more and more it takes the form of
payment for voting at all, of continued tenure of jobs within the
gift or control of politicians and other oblique and indirect forms
of remuneration.
It would be possible to occupy much space in this volume with a
history of bygone days, when naturalization was a farce and a
scandal, and the ignorant immigrant vote a real factor in American
politics. As early as 1835, this was a source of alarm to the native
Americans, the emotion being intensified and complicated by the
religious sectarianism which was a large factor in the nativistic
Know-Nothing movement. Congress was memorialized about
... the ease with which foreigners of doubtful morals and hostile
political principles acquired the right to vote, and pointed to
this as a source of real danger to the country. The petitioners saw
with great concern the influx of Roman Catholics. To such persons,
as men, they had no dislike. To their religion, as a religion, they
had no objection. But against their political opinions, interwoven
with their religious belief, they asked legislation.[164]
In those days the “New Immigration,” though the distinction
between “old” and “new” now current had not been created, was more
particularly of Irish and German--both races now generally regarded
as of the “old,” the more desirable kind!
Ostrogorski, in his _Democracy and the Party System in the United
States_, says:[165]
Owing to the facilities offered by the American naturalization
laws, the immigrants began to enjoy the rights of citizenship after
a short period of residence. Ignorant, with no political education,
these new members of the Commonwealth took service at once in the
party organization, and blindly followed the word of command.
Coming from countries the inhabitants of which were languishing in
wretchedness and degradation, as in Ireland, or gasping under the
vexatious regime of police-ridden and grandmotherly governments,
as in Germany with its _Polezei-Staat_, the immigrants could not
resist the seduction of the word “democrat,” and joined the ranks
of the Democratic organization wholesale, bound hand and foot.
Ostrogorski took his view from the situation in New York City, as
many other writers have done; overlooking the fact that to a great
extent the new voter, both native and foreign-born, has usually and
naturally followed first the political partisan preference of his
father and his racial associates, and second, the trend of party
success. The dominating party machine in any city naturally has the
prestige of success, and its ability to deliver patronage, large
and small, draws those to whom a job is the vitally important thing
in life. In New York City the power of the ignorant vote always has
been a great source of strength to Tammany, which happens to be
Democratic; in Philadelphia the same thing may be said of the local
organization, which happens to be Republican.
CORRUPTION WAS NOT AN IMPORTATION
It is a common impression that the backbone of political corruption
lies in the so-called “foreign vote.” Ostrogorski paid his respects
to that idea. Said he:[166]
The most shameless venality is often met with in the country
districts, particularly in the states of the Atlantic seaboard;
nay, even in New England, inhabited by the descendants of the
Puritans. Votes are sold there openly, like an article of commerce;
there is a regular market quotation for them. And it is not only
needy people Who make a traffic of their votes, but well-to-do
farmers, of American stock, pious folk who always go to church on
Sunday. If the farmer’s son is an elector and dwells under the
paternal roof the father receives the price of his vote and that of
their help, who is under a sort of moral obligation to vote for the
same candidate as his master. A good many would not take a bribe
from the party which they regard as hostile; they keep faith with
their own party, but they, none the less, demand money for their
vote, in the form of an indemnity for their trouble, for loss of
time, for traveling expenses. In some country districts a quarter
or a third of the electors make money out of their votes.
HOME-GROWN IN ADAMS COUNTY, OHIO!
Once at least in our political history we had an opportunity to
see Ostrogorski’s assertion convincingly illustrated, and legally
attested by “judicial notice” of a competent court, in the case
of Adams County, Ohio, where, a decade ago, in 1910, one brave
local judge, by the name of A. Z. Blair, haled before him a whole
countryside of farmers, and disfranchised for confessed corruption
pretty much the whole population. Here was exactly the situation
described by Ostrogorski--“votes sold openly, like an article of
commerce,” ... “a regular market quotation,” ... “well-to-do farmers,
of American stock,” ... “a third of the electors make money out of
their votes.” By stress of a special grand jury Judge Blair brought
out complete and all but universal confessions, and imposed fines and
disfranchisement upon the majority of voters in a whole rural county.
It is instructive [said the _Outlook_ in its editorial comment]
to note that this slump of citizenship has not occurred among
foreigners or negroes, nor in the slums of cities, but in a purely
rural population, and among voters of native American stock.[167]
WHO IS THE BUYER OF VOTES?
Incidentally it may be remarked that in all this business of
election bribery, which in past years has been all but omnipresent
in American politics, the emphasis is laid upon those, American or
foreign-born, who _sell_ their votes. Even if it were true that the
purchasable voter was chiefly the voter of alien race, _every sale
implies a purchase_. Before any voter can sell his vote, somebody
must be prepared to buy it. The seat of corruption lies, not in the
venal voter alone, but also in the system that gathers money for the
purpose of buying him. And that system, from the very beginning, has
been devised and engineered by the American politician, and those
behind him in American business life who desire to control elections
and the people’s representative selected therein, for their own
“business” ends. It would not be difficult to point to elections of
very great importance in America--even Presidential elections--in
which the vote of great states was swayed one way or the other by the
margin represented by the out-and-out purchase of votes at so much
per head. Nor would any person above the age of six years seriously
debate the question of the native-American origin of the people who
incited and paid for the corruption.
William S. Bennet, then a member of Congress from New York City, and
of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, put his
finger exactly on the center of this question when he said:[168]
Much of our trouble in the past has sprung from the belief among
newly made citizens, justified by far too much evidence, that we
ourselves have regarded elections as contentions to be decided
not at all by argument, persuasion, or reason, but by trickery,
treachery, bribery, perjury, assault, forgery, deceit and even
murder.... The new and impressionable citizen of even but twenty
years ago had held out to him at election inducements to all that
was worst in his character. If he held our elections and our
institutions lightly, we had ourselves to blame for it.... Man
moves much along lines of least resistance, and the stranger adapts
himself to conditions as he finds them. Make your elections riotous
and corrupt, and your new-made, foreign-born citizen riots and
sells his vote with the native-born....
The new citizen has neither political inheritance, prejudice, nor
scars of conflict. He votes always in the present, sometimes for
the future, but never in the past. Being poor, it is quite true
that when there is corruption, he is among those approached. Being
ambitious, the lure of minor place sometimes weighs with him more
than principle.
Mr. Bennet, on the same occasion, emphasized the fact that a sharp
distinction must be drawn between the mass of immigrants constituting
the bulk of the foreign population, especially in the cities, and the
small portion thereof actually participating in political activities:
It should be carefully borne in mind that in no great city is
the naturalized voter a newly arrived immigrant.... In cities
the newly made voter is a resident in this country certainly for
five, and usually for more, years, before he votes even for the
first time. Candidates in foreign-speaking localities frequently
address audiences the majority of whom, either by age or alienage,
are unable to vote.... The 644,000 electors who had a right to
participate in our recent election were, thus, either native-born
or having five years or more of residence. Of the 644,000 who
registered about 590,000 voted. These divided their votes roughly
as follows: Gaynor, Tammany and Democrat, 250,000; Bannard,
Republican and Fusion, 175,000; Hearst, 150,000. Four years ago,
the vote was, Tammany, 226,000; Hearst, 224,000; Republican,
137,000. Therefore this year both the Tammany and Republican
candidates gained at the expense of Hearst. The exact significance
of this is immaterial and accounted for readily by a variety of
causes. The important fact remains that 150,000 voters, without
particular leadership or organization, left the party ranks and
voted for an individual of their choice.
There is no substantial support, either in any careful study of
elections as a whole or in particular, or in the experience of those
who have lived close to the political processes of our country, for
the widespread impression that the foreign-born voter is more given
to or victim of political corruption than any other class.
ATTEMPTS TO FIND THE “FOREIGN VOTE”
It is exceedingly difficult to identify the part played in any
particular election, or in elections generally, by foreign-born
voters. Political leaders and others who make analyses of election
returns have their theories and prepossessions, and find in figures
what they want to find, to defend policies, support theories, and
sustain positions generally. In the presidential election of 1920,
this was especially evident. Those who supported the Republican
ticket and platform and those who supported the Democratic; those
violently opposed to the League of Nations and those devotedly in
favor of it--alike found in the election returns, manipulated to
suit their views, sustenance for argument as to the part played in
the result by this, that, and the other racial group or political
faction. Even the Socialists, whose basic theory is the most
definitely declared of all political theories, find in a growing vote
evidences of wide acceptance of their doctrines; in its shrinkage
merely the desertion of mere protestors or sentimentalists who
really do not understand Socialism at all! Personal prejudice and
predilection exhibit themselves notoriously in political figuring.
The process usually consists of more or less gratuitous assumptions,
from which one may prove statistically--whatever he wants to prove.
An exceptional instance of an attempt to analyze an election without
preliminary bias appears in a study of “The Political Mind of
Foreign-born Americans,” contributed by Dr. Abram Lipsky to _Popular
Science Monthly_ several years ago,[169] in which he undertook by
analysis of the election returns from a number of Assembly Districts
in Greater New York, predominantly of a certain racial complexion, to
infer the attitude of those racial groups on certain subjects. But it
is clear that the inferences, however they may have been justified
by the figures from this election, were based upon questionable
assumptions. Still more important, it is altogether fallacious to
assume that in another election, wherein the issues were stated
differently or the general political atmosphere was different, these
very districts, these very individual voters of whatever race, might
not vote quite otherwise. A state of mind among the Italian-born
voters, provoked, for example, by their understanding of the attitude
of Mr. Wilson on the subject of Fiume, might produce Republican
votes in one election; whereas a year later, in an election in
which their interests at home or abroad were believed by them to be
otherwise affected, their votes might be overwhelmingly Democratic.
One of the questions which Doctor Lipsky undertook to answer from the
election figures was whether the voters in the selected districts
“read the Hearst papers regularly.” He inferred his answer from
the vote cast in those districts for the candidates which happened
to be favored by the newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst.
But the basic assumption was fallacious, overlooking entirely the
notorious fact that repeatedly elections in New York City have been
won in spite of the opposition, or lost in spite of the support,
of virtually the entire newspaper press of the city. As logically
might one assume from any election that the vote, pro or contra, on
any subject represented the circulation of some particular group of
newspapers whose views the election indorsed.
Nearer the probabilities, but still subject to the same kind of
discount, is Doctor Lipsky’s generalization as to the showing of one
election on the subject of the attitude of certain racial groups as
regards Tammany Hall and Socialism. This analysis is not without a
certain degree of general significance.
Doctor Lipsky’s conclusion that “native-born Americans of American
parents are opposed to Tammany government” is based upon a comparison
of figures from districts predominantly of native Americans, in the
elections for governor in 1910 and for mayor of New York in 1913, his
primary assumption being that the candidacy of Judge Edward E. McCall
for mayor embodied “Tammany” pure and simple, while that of John A.
Dix for governor did not make “Tammany” a state issue. From this
point of view Doctor Lipsky interprets the fact that the percentage
of votes for McCall in those districts was strikingly lower than
those for Dix in the state election of three years before:
TABLE XXXVII
PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN
1910 BY VOTERS OF NATIVE PARENTS
======================================================
| PER CENT | |
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | OF NATIVE | 1913 | 1910
| PARENTS | MCCALL | DIX
--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------
15th Manhattan | 45.3 | 33.7 | 58.1
19th “ | 40.0 | 33.2 | 52.3
25th “ | 44.1 | 35.3 | 48.4
27th “ | 51.5 | 37.6 | 55.8
4th Queens | 41.3 | 31.1 | 46.2
17th Brooklyn | 45.6 | 24.7 | 43.6
11th “ | 38.0 | 34.9 | 50.5
18th | 39.0 | 28.3 | 46.3
5th | 38.1 | 25.3 | 44.1
10th “ | 38.6 | 36.6 | 53.3
======================================================
But the Russians and Austrians also said “No” to Tammany, as Doctor
Lipsky reads the figures:
TABLE XXXVIII
PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN
1910 BY RUSSIANS AND AUSTRIANS
============================================================
|RUSSIANS|AUSTRIANS| BOTH | |
ASSEMBLY | PER | PER | PER | 1913 | 1910
DISTRICT | CENT | CENT | CENT | MCCALL | DIX
---------------+--------+---------+--------+--------+-------
8th Manhattan | 54.4 | 14.2 | 68.6 | 40.2 | 52.3
6th “ | 30.4 | 30.8 | 61.2 | 22.8 | 40.0
4th “ | 35.6 | 25.2 | 60.2 | 51.1 | 61.7
26th “ | 34.6 | 6.7 | 41.3 | 30.0 | 41.0
2d “ | 35.6 | 1.4 | 37.0 | 57.6 | 67.5
10th “ | 22.3 | 12.5 | 34.8 | 29.3 | 52.2
31st “ | 12.9 | 4.9 | 17.8 | 24.1 | 44.7
21st Brooklyn | 31.2 | 5.9 | 37.1 | 27.1 | 48.6
23d “ | 33.3 | 3.9 | 37.2 | 25.7 | 40.9
14th “ | 16.1 | 5.9 | 22.0 | 46.6 | 61.5
22d “ | 13.0 | 3.0 | 16.0 | 24.3 | 38.5
============================================================
The Irish voted for Tammany, as usual:
TABLE XXXIX
PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN
1910 BY THE IRISH
===============================================
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | PER CENT | 1913 | 1910
| OF IRISH | MCCALL | DIX
-------------------+----------+--------+-------
13th Manhattan | 16.4 | 61.0 | 58.1
16th “ | 14.0 | 51.7 | 61.4
11th “ | 12.2 | 55.6 | 60.5
14th “ | 12.4 | 54.7 | 61.2
5th “ | 11.2 | 64.4 | 67.6
===============================================
Allowance must be made here for some falling off of the vote in a
municipal as compared with a state election; but a still greater
allowance must be made for the fact that “Tammany” was indeed a
state issue--Dix was distinctly charged by the opposition with
being Tammany’s candidate, and there were, as always, confusing and
inestimable factors of a subtle kind--such, for instance, as the fact
that McCall had an Irish name, and Dix didn’t; or that the name “John
A. Dix” had a sound historically familiar--even if not one regularly
American-born person in a hundred could remember who the historic
“John A. Dix” was!
Some years the Germans are supposed to have supported Tammany; this
particular time Doctor Lipsky seems to find that they did not--in
districts in which Germans made up a considerable percentage of the
population. (See Table XL.)
Think what you will of the Italians’ attitude toward Tammany; you
can stress the fact that the vote for McCall was so much below that
of three years before for Dix, or you can philosophize about the
fact that it was no greater! Doctor Lipsky’s inference that, on
the whole, they supported Tammany is based on the figures from six
districts. (See Table XLI.)
TABLE XL
PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN
1910 BY GERMANS
==================================================
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | PER CENT | 1913 | 1910
| OF GERMANS | MCCALL | DIX
--------------------+------------+--------+-------
3d Queens | 21.4 | 31.1 | 49.8
20th Brooklyn | 20.2 | 26.8 | 41.8
19th “ | 13.6 | 31.9 | 48.3
23d “ | 11.2 | 34.6 | 49.4
1st Queens | 11.1 | 41.4 | 55.2
22d Manhattan | 21.2 | 38.4 | 50.2
==================================================
TABLE XLI
PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN
1910 BY THE ITALIANS
====================================================
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | PER CENT | 1913 | 1910
| OF ITALIANS | MCCALL | DIX
---------------------+-------------+--------+-------
3d Manhattan | 30.3 | 67.6 | 77.7
1st “ | 25.2 | 59.6 | 67.8
28th “ | 26.8 | 42.6 | 55.8
3d Brooklyn | 23.2 | 63.7 | 73.1
2d Manhattan | 18.5 | 57.6 | 67.4
====================================================
“We are able,” says Doctor Lipsky, “to say that a decided ‘no’ was
given to Tammany by native Americans of native parents, and by the
Russians and Germans; a decided ‘Yes’ was given by the Italian and
Irish.”
The thing that stands out in these figures, whatever else may be
said, would seem to be the fact that, like the native Americans of
native parentage, the voters of foreign racial antecedents changed
their support with changing circumstances and influences. The
conventional view of the foreign-born voter is that he votes in
herds, as he is told to vote, and that in New York City Tammany does
the herding. Well, in the mayoralty election of 1913, judging by
these figures, it is evident that Tammany’s “herding” was not wholly
successful with those “new-immigration” voters classed as Russians
and Austrians! All sorts of factors, local and general, fundamental
and temporary, almost Wholly incalculable, enter into elections, and
one is free to analyze and interpret to suit himself.
On the subject of the “political mind of the foreign-born voter” as
regards Socialism, Doctor Lipsky presents some interesting figures
from ten assembly districts in which the Socialist candidate for
mayor in 1913 received over 10 per cent of the total vote.
TABLE XLII
PER CENT OF SOCIALISTIC VOTE IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1910 AND 1913 BY
NATIONALITY
=====================================================================
| SOCIALIST |NATIVE| | | | |
ASSEMBLY | VOTE | OF | | | | |
DISTRICT +------+------+NATIVE|AUSTR-|GERMAN|IRISH| ITAL-| RUSS-
| 1910 | 1913 |PAREN-| IAN | | | IAN | IAN
| | | TAGE | | | | |
--------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------
21st Brooklyn | 12.4 | 16.1 | 12.6 | 5.9 | 4.1 | ... | 9.1 | 31.2
23d “ | 12.5 | 15.8 | 19.6 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 4.6 | 33.3
19th “ | 11.0 | 12.8 | 12.6 | .8 | 13.6 | ... | 9.9 | 11.9
4th Manhattan| 12.6 | 11.9 | 7.0 | 25.2 | .4 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 35.6
26th “ | 10.2 | 11.8 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 4.6 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 34.6
8th “ | 14.6 | 11.7 | 2.5 | 14.2 | .7 | ... | 4.1 | 54.4
22d “ | 13.1 | 11.7 | 10.6 | 4.6 | 21.2 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 3.6
6th “ | 10.0 | 11.2 | 2.4 | 30.8 | 1.1 | .7 | .7 | 30.4
24th “ | 10.4 | 11.2 | 11.1 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 6.2 | 11.1 | 20.6
10th “ | 11.1 | 10.8 | 5.9 | 12.5 | 4.7 | ... | 13.9 | 22.3
=====================================================================
“Our conclusion therefore is,” says Doctor Lipsky, “that the bulk of
the Socialist vote is derived from the foreign Jewish element, and
to a less degree from the Germans.”
Perhaps, but one may not ignore, for instance, the fact that in
the district of these containing the largest percentage of native
Americans of native parentage, the Socialist vote for Governor in
1910 was 12.5 per cent of the whole; or that in the one in which the
Russian and Austrian percentage was very small and the German larger
than in any other of the districts selected, the Socialist vote was
about 13 per cent. We shall see later in this chapter the importance
of the German factor in the Socialist party.
All such analyses of particular elections, we may say again, are
interesting and in a measure instructive; but generalizations
are exceedingly perilous and greatly conditioned by personal
preconceptions, special temporary and local forces and circumstances,
and the purposes of the statistician for the time being--for all of
which the candid student will, and must, make heavy discounts.
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE IDEAS
Coming to the question of the Progressive party’s campaign in 1912,
Doctor Lipsky says, in part:
One of two facts in the election of 1912 ... are extremely
suggestive even though they do not cover the whole ground. In that
election Roosevelt ran ahead of Wilson in only four districts of
the city. One was the 23d of Manhattan, in which Taft also ran
ahead of Wilson--a strong Republican district. The other three
were the 6th, the 8th, and the 26th, the three districts in which
the Russians and Austrians constitute the great majority of the
electorate.
So there you are--make what you will of it. Why should the very
districts in which we found heavy percentages of Russians and
Austrians, and a relatively heavy Socialist vote, produce a
preponderant vote for Roosevelt and the Progressive platform? Is
there, after all, a common factor, overlooked--or anyway not dwelt
upon--by Doctor Lipsky, to account for what otherwise might seem
inexplicable? Here again one may philosophize to suit himself, but it
is worth while to consider one phase of the matter too often ignored
in discussions of the motives and impulses behind the radical vote.
William S. Bennet, previously quoted in the same address, dwelt upon
this matter in speaking of the influence of Mr. Hearst:[170]
Mr. Hearst’s vote among the foreign born was great, and, more
than the other two candidates combined [speaking of an election
in which Mr. Hearst was himself a candidate], he attracted that
vote. It becomes important to analyze Mr. Hearst’s appeal. Much
of it we find to have been on right lines. We cannot quarrel,
because of those views, with a candidate who asks votes because he
has fought against railroad rebates, corporation exactions, and
fraudulent elections. Under New York City conditions we cannot
quarrel with one who advocates the building of immediate transit
facilities with city money. It was also rather begging the question
to assert that Mr. Hearst exaggerated his efforts and usefulness
in relation to those matters. The personal and temperamental
fitness of a candidate is always an element to be considered,
and in Mr. Hearst’s case it was, though more in private than in
public discussion. His record as a persistent absentee during his
congressional service and the legitimate argument from it that he
would be a negligent mayor, cost Mr. Hearst more votes among those
friendly to him among the foreign born than he probably imagines.
Mr. Hearst never made an appeal for support on the ground that
it would be of any personal assistance to himself. His appeal
was frequently to the self-interest of the individual, and quite
generally to his highest interest as a citizen in the welfare
of the whole body politic. He favored policies because, in his
expressed judgment, they were right, not because they might be
immediately successful; and opposed others because wrong, though by
many deemed expedient.
The point to be noted, then, is that in the propaganda of the
Socialists, of the Progressive party, of Mr. Hearst, there was much
stress upon and slogans about the common welfare, the improvement of
social conditions, the square deal, honest politics and government,
human brotherhood. The note never was outwardly selfish or
materialistic. Always, in the main, it was idealism--whatever may
have been the private motives actually underlying in any particular
case.
It is the common experience of those who have worked with the
foreign-born voter that he usually is responsive to this kind of
appeal. Is it not really a tribute to ourselves, as well as an index
of his own idea of what “America” stands for, that he acts at the
ballot box as if he would like to see these things incarnated in the
life of his adopted country?
Mr. Bennet went on to say that “we learn, certainly, concerning our
most recent citizens, from the Hearst vote”:
1. They are independent voters.
2. They are not constrained to remain in the party in power
nationally.
3. Nor do they remain with a party simply because it is usually
dominant locally.
4. They are not afraid to sacrifice immediate possible benefit by
attaching themselves to a lesser party and temporary movement.
5. They are moved by appeals to good citizenship.
6. They are quite certain to range themselves on the right side of
a question of morals.
7. A certain proportion of them are moved by direct appeals, based
on alleged class distinctions.
8. The thinly veiled policy of license advanced by the Tammany
candidate did not draw them from Mr. Hearst, though he vigorously
condemned license and its advocacy.
And Mr. Bennet added, “these things have been proved concerning the
immigrant. Without going into specifications, which are, however,
well understood locally, these things are _not_ proved”:
1. That he always votes for a fellow countryman or a coreligionist.
2. That he can be invariably stampeded by a race or religious issue.
3. That he votes blindly.
SOME RESULTS FROM CLEVELAND
It is impossible to forecast the working out in our politics of the
passions aroused by the World War among the various racial groups by
the relations and enmities of their respective fatherlands in that
vast turmoil, and the effects of the behavior of native-American
elements toward particular races, and even toward “foreigners”
generally. It is evident that for any intelligent understanding of
what, in the long run and under approximately normal conditions, are
the political attitudes and activities, we must derive our facts
largely from an earlier period--at least antedating the armistice
and the bitter conflicts growing out of the Peace Treaty and the
partisanship characterizing the controversy about the League of
Nations which so greatly confused the issues in the presidential
election of 1920.
A series of elections in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, in the period
between 1911 and 1918 seemed to offer opportunities for study of a
number of large racial groups under reasonably normal conditions.
It is not claimed that this Study was conclusive in its results
or fully scientific in its method; but it certainly produced a
significant exhibit of facts, and in general confirmed what is
known to everyone who ever has worked With or candidly observed at
first hand the part played by the foreign-born voter in American
politics--namely, that he is in no important respect different from
the native-born; that he is swayed by the same motives and emotions,
and is not essentially different in respect of responsiveness to
appeals to his civic pride.
The first step was to select for study a group of election precincts
including as large a proportion as possible of the various
nationalities, and for comparison another group of districts which
would show the action of native-born voters. Ten of the latter
were selected, including populations both relatively wealthy and
relatively poor, and both habitually Republican and habitually
Democratic. For foreign-born racial groups the following were
selected as most important: Czechs, Magyars, Poles, Jugo-Slavs,
Italians, and Jews. Owing to the scattered nature of the racial
distribution, it was impossible to find a large number of districts
predominantly of any particular race; but it was possible to
segregate three for each of these races, and four for one, for
comparison with them of the native born; so that 29 precincts were
studied, as follows:
TABLE XLIII
DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONALITY IN TWENTY-NINE PRECINCTS IN CLEVELAND
====================================================
Native born | 10
Czech | 3
Magyar | 3
Polish | 3
Jugo-Slav | 3
Italian | 4
Jewish | 3
----------------------------------+------
Total | 29
====================================================
Eight elections were covered by the inquiry, comparing the votes for:
Mayor 1911--Baker _vs._ Hogen.
Mayor 1913--Baker _vs._ Davis.
Mayor 1915--Witt, Davis, Ruthenberg.
Mayor 1917--Stinchcomb, Davis, Ruthenberg.
President 1916--Wilson, Hughes, Debs.
Governor 1916--Cox _vs._ Willis.
Governor 1918--Cox _vs._ Willis.
Congressman 1918--Candidates differing in different districts.
The returns were examined also for indications as to attitudes about
woman suffrage and the question of no-license and prohibition, in
elections between 1912 and 1918.
Of the native-born precincts, so called, five indicated almost
straight Democratic tendencies; three were consistently Republican;
and two were of varying complexion as between the two great parties.
It should be remembered that the prevailing general complexion of the
city of Cleveland in recent years, and regardless of the “landslide”
of 1920, has been Democratic. Therefore the districts selected to
show the tendencies of the native born were fairly representative of
the situation.
The first election, 1911, was a straight partisan contest between Mr.
Baker, a Democrat, and Mr. Hogen, a Republican. In 1913, the city
tried, for the first time, its municipal nonpartisan ballot; but in
that year the old political parties were as powerful as ever. In the
election of 1915, Mr. Baker was not a candidate, but Peter Witt, long
associated with Mayor Tom L. Johnson, was the Democratic candidate.
This election exhibits circumstances and results significant not only
of the attitude of the foreign-born voter and his responsiveness to
political cross-currents, but of the extreme difficulty of isolating
particular factors as especially influential upon these voters.
Mr. Witt had just completed four years of service as Street Railway
Commissioner, and among the business and professional classes of
the town had won a rather reluctant recognition for efficiency, the
reluctance being largely due to the fact that in days when he was
campaigning for Tom Johnson he had been regarded as ultra-radical.
But his opponent in this campaign had no recognized record of
administrative capacity, and the Republicans themselves acknowledged
some doubt as to his ability, compared with the known ability of
Witt, to fulfill the duties of the mayoralty. Both candidates
were regarded without opposition by the “wet” element, though Mr.
Davis was perhaps more circumspect in his utterances on the liquor
question. The campaign did not touch the questions involved in the
European War until the very end, when, on the Sunday before election,
some supporter of Davis published and widely circulated among the
Bohemians (Czechs), Russians, and Italians a pamphlet in which Witt
was bitterly accused of being pro-German.
Now the results of the election in the wards dominated by those
nationalities might rationally be held to show a pronounced effect of
that propaganda, but it was no secret, the old “aristocratic” wards
were presumably as keen about pro-Germanism as those inhabited by
voters of alien origin, and there, if anywhere, would be the seat
of the prejudice against Witt on the ground of alleged radicalism.
Why, then, did the native-born conservatives waive their prejudices
against Witt, the supposed radical, and overlook the charges of
pro-Germanism? And why did the foreign born, who are conventionally
expected to be radical, suddenly turn and vote against the only
candidate who was accused of being radical? Why did Mr. Witt gain
nothing in the heavily German wards (as in fact he did gain nothing)
from his German name, his remote German ancestry, and the accusation
of pro-Germanism? It was further noted at the time that among the
Russian Jews the attack upon Witt turned many normally Democratic
votes to the Davis Republican candidate. Why?
The following tables show what happened in the precincts studied:
TABLE XLIV
DISTRIBUTION OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN VOTES IN CLEVELAND IN
1913 AND 1915 AMONG CERTAIN RACIAL GROUPS
========================================================
| NUMBER OF VOTES | NUMBER OF VOTES
+--------+--------+--------+--------
PRECINCTS | 1913 | 1915
+--------+--------+--------+--------
| Baker | Davis | Witt | Davis
--------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------
Native born | 945 | 1,091 | 1,039 | 925
Czech | 343 | 223 | 275 | 373
Magyar | 207 | 204 | 302 | 204
Polish | 263 | 208 | 205 | 473
Jugo-Slav | 283 | 135 | 279 | 137
Italian | 239 | 282 | 136 | 394
Jewish | 260 | 256 | 273 | 212
========================================================
The three elections following--the presidential in 1916, the
mayoralty election in 1917, and the governorship election in
1918--exhibit no tendencies attributable either to the war or to
any special causes from which one may generalize anything with
regard to the political activities and attitudes of the foreign-born
voters which would distinguish them from the native-born. In 1912
Wilson carried Polish, Magyar, and Czech precincts. In 1916 he
repeated--this presumably not because of any aspect of the war, but
because those precincts are normally Democratic.
The Cleveland nonpartisan ballot provides for three choices. One of
the objections urged against the nonpartisan ballot has been that the
second and third choices would be used only by the more intelligent
voter; that the less intelligent would vote for but one. In the
elections studied in which this three-choice system was used, 20 per
cent of the native born expressed second choices; the foreign born
followed in this order:
TABLE XLV
PER CENT OF CERTAIN RACES EXERCISING SECOND AND THIRD CHOICES
=====================================================
|SECOND CHOICE| THIRD CHOICE
RACE | PER CENT | PER CENT
-------------------------+-------------+-------------
Native born | 20 | 7
Jugo-Slav | 18 | 7
Jews | 14 | 5
Italians | 12 | 7
Magyars and Bohemians | 10 | 7
Polish | 7 | 3
=====================================================
A smaller per cent exercises third choice, but three foreign-born
groups equaled the native born with 7 per cent. The Jews with 5 per
cent, Magyars with 4 per cent, Polish with 3 per cent, were the
lowest.
While there is little in these figures to justify generalization,
it may be said that, on the whole, the voters presumably more
intelligent are in practice rather afraid of the second- and
third-choice business because they recognize some danger that in
expressing a second choice they may, in the final count, negative
their first choice; therefore there is a marked tendency among
the politically sophisticated to vote only a first choice. At all
events, no substantial distinction can be drawn from any available
statistics between native and foreign born, as such, with regard to
their intelligence or their tendencies in the use of such a device.
When one comes to consider what might be called the _human_ aspects
of politics, these elections in Cleveland show, what elections
everywhere show, interesting but in no way surprising facts. One
is that the voters of any race tend to support a candidate of that
race, or a man well known as friendly to its members. Mr. Davis was
exceedingly well known and popular among the Bohemians, who are both
numerically strong and racially influential in Cleveland. In the
first election studied, that of 1911, Mr. Baker, a Democrat, carried
the three Bohemian (Czech) precincts by substantial pluralities as
against Mr. Hogen. His total vote in these precincts aggregated 445
to Hogen’s 183. But in 1913 Mr. Davis carried one of the precincts.
And over against this fact is the consideration that in 1913 Baker
was generally much weaker as a candidate than in 1911--for reasons
having no appreciable racial bearing. In 1915, as shown in the table
above, there was a heavy swing in the three Bohemian districts in
favor of Davis, the Republican candidate.
Under the head of _human_ tendencies one may consider the question
of the immigrants’ attitude toward prohibition. The reaction is just
what would be expected from voters of foreign extraction. The Magyars
(Hungarians), normally Democratic, swung greatly enhanced Democratic
pluralities when that party was recognized as opposed to prohibition.
And the old-country attitudes about the position of woman showed
clearly in the vote on woman suffrage, as they all voted against the
“dry” proposals and candidates.
In the earlier days in Cleveland the Italians were led by a very
influential Italian who was a Republican, and until recent years
the Italian vote was preponderantly Republican. Now, however, the
Cleveland politicians will tell you that this preponderance has
passed; the Italians are said to be fairly evenly divided. But in any
particular election the Italian vote may sway this way or that, under
the influence of temporary factors that swing elections everywhere.
In one Italian precinct, in four municipal elections, the Republican
candidate was preferred in every case. Hughes had a small plurality
over Wilson. But in two state elections the Democrats won--admittedly
because the Republican candidate was regarded as “dry.”
Again the human factor--take the Jews. One of the Cleveland precincts
studied is made up of an overwhelming majority of the more prosperous
class of Jewish people. The other two are located in the Ghetto of
the city. There is no similarity in the political trends of the two
parts of the city. The wealthier Jews vote as a rule for Democrat or
Republican. In 1917 the Socialist candidate for mayor carried both of
the poorer districts. But do the Jews move away from the Socialist
districts because they are opposed to Socialism, or do they turn from
Socialism when they become more prosperous?
Persistent in most of the studies of this subject is the fallacy of
assuming or attempting to find some constant factor attaching either
to this or that particular race, or to the state of being foreign
born or of foreign antecedents. The Jugo-Slavs in Cleveland are said,
and appear to be shown in the statistics above, to be preponderantly
Democratic. In 1916 Wilson received in the three Jugo-Slav precincts
more than 70 per cent of the total vote. But, aside from the fact
that Socialism is or has been at times politically strong among the
Jugo-Slavs, we have no data to show how Jugo-Slavs voted in districts
where they are in the minority; we do not know why they voted for
Wilson in 1916, or how many of them did so vote. The 70 per cent
above referred to included large numbers of voters in those precincts
who were of other racial complexion, and the individual ballot in no
instance discloses the inner mind of the voter.
“CIVIC INTEREST” IN GRAND RAPIDS
When we come down to the larger question, of the response of voters
of foreign birth and origin to constructive efforts to interest
them in civic matters, we are on surer ground. Given a sufficiently
comprehensive survey, we can tell whether the “foreign wards” of
a city are apathetic toward movements which they can recognize as
embodying concrete things close to their own lives, and meaning a
forward step in public administration. The testimony of all sorts
of workers among the foreign born is unanimous on this point.
The foreign-born voters are more responsive to things of this
kind than the native-born. Possibly this is because their more
recent introduction into American life makes them more naïve, less
blasé--what you will as to the reason, the fact remains the same.
It so happens that we have a peculiarly apt and informing exhibit
of this in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in statistics of
five elections involving questions of municipal import, and showing
in most striking fashion the results of a sustained effort, not to
influence votes this way or that, but to impress citizens with the
importance of voting at all. The following tables show the total
vote cast in the three wards of the city of Grand Rapids at these
elections:
TABLE XLVI
VOTE CAST IN PRECINCTS OF VARYING RACIAL MAKE-UP IN THREE WARDS OF
GRAND RAPIDS, 1918, 1919
First Ward
==================================================================
PRECINCT| RACIAL |MARCH |AUGUST|NOVEMBER|MARCH | APRIL
| COMPLEXION | 1918 | 1918 | 1918 | 1919 | 1919
--------+-------------------+------+------+--------+------+-------
1st | Lithuanian | 95 | 144 | 178 | 222 | 316
2d | Dutch | 267 | 402 | 443 | 483 | 601
3d | Polish | 359 | 608 | 672 | 721 | 1,105
4th | American | 197 | 311 | 347 | 358 | 593
5th | American | 334 | 508 | 555 | 757 | 1,063
6th | Polish | 239 | 386 | 407 | 532 | 764
7th | Polish | 305 | 464 | 541 | 729 | 946
8th | American | 213 | 338 | 386 | 536 | 719
9th | German | 210 | 349 | 419 | 535 | 752
10th | Mixed | 296 | 425 | 455 | 682 | 909
11th | Mixed | 263 | 427 | 484 | 643 | 899
12th | American | 260 | 403 | 461 | 685 | 940
--------+-------------------+------+------+--------+------+-------
Second Ward
--------+-------------------+------+------+--------+------+-------
1st | American | 270 | 438 | 499 | 682 | 907
2d | American | 251 | 322 | 423 | 557 | 796
3d | American | 360 | 519 | 549 | 738 | 885
4th | American | 227 | 393 | 434 | 475 | 658
5th | Polish | 166 | 227 | 291 | 363 | 467
6th | Polish | 277 | 449 | 514 | 721 | 952
7th | American | 292 | 407 | 496 | 837 | 881
8th | American | 206 | 300 | 375 | 574 | 732
9th | American | 129 | 245 | 324 | 238 | 434
10th | Dutch | 314 | 451 | 546 | 1,002| 1,139
11th | Dutch | 240 | 373 | 418 | 594 | 726
12th | American | 231 | 399 | 476 | 783 | 931
13th | American | 409 | 588 | 671 | 1,063| 1,297
14th | American | 331 | 457 | 544 | 1,085| 1,229
15th | Italian and Syrian| 291 | 486 | 618 | 1,168| 1,357
16th | Italian and Syrian| 89 | 155 | 187 | 187 | 285
17th | Italian and Syrian| 115 | 164 | 209 | 253 | 326
--------+-------------------+------+------+--------+------+-------
Third Ward
--------+-------------------+------+------+--------+------+-------
1st | Italian and Syrian| 178 | 247 | 328 | 379 | 540
2d | Italian and Syrian| 98 | 135 | 258 | 263 | 440
3d | American | 318 | 551 | 680 | 1,004| 1,298
4th | American | 354 | 546 | 619 | 980 | 1,203
5th | American | 422 | 613 | 681 | 861 | 1,019
6th | American | 241 | 380 | 433 | 674 | 848
7th | Dutch | 292 | 480 | 511 | 628 | 952
8th | American | 346 | 555 | 631 | 818 | 1,165
9th | American | 255 | 416 | 509 | 720 | 979
10th | American | 266 | 470 | 547 | 771 | 1,114
11th | American | 188 | 360 | 450 | 516 | 812
12th | Dutch | 291 | 488 | 578 | 717 | 986
13th | Dutch | 218 | 367 | 413 | 463 | 658
14th | American | 224 | 404 | 490 | 677 | 909
15th | American | 124 | 224 | 272 | 417 | 604
16th | American | 194 | 387 | 442 | 594 | 847
--------+-------------------+------+------+--------+------+-------
| Totals |11,245|17,820| 20,774|28,705|37,983
==================================================================
The population of Grand Rapids, about 112,500 by the census of 1910,
by the spring of 1918 had grown to approximately 132,000. This would
afford a potential male vote of upward of 26,000; so that at the
primary election that March, considerably less than half of the
possible vote was polled. At the election in August, 1918, this was
increased to nearly 70 per cent, and to 80 per cent in November.
In 1919, however, the women came into the picture, and the efforts
of the Americanization Society[171] were redoubled to bring the
women out, first to register and then to vote. The report of the
secretary of the society (made at the annual meeting in January,
1920) states that on February 15th, the last registration day before
the March primary, 22,700 women had registered. And on March 20th,
the last registration day before the election of April 7th, women
had registered to a total of 26,500--an astounding proportion of the
possible total of women citizens of voting age in a population of
132,000. It looks very much like 100 per cent!
The last two columns in the table above show the totals including the
women voters, and the striking increase between the March primary and
the April election in 1919. With a possible total vote of upward of
50,000 we have the results of the Americanization Society’s work as
showing in the actual personal presence at the polls of at least 75
per cent of the voters of all racial groups. The vote cast on March
5, 1919, was 28,705, composed, it is said, of about half men and half
women. At the election on April 7th, nearly 38,000 votes were cast,
and it is estimated that from 7,000 to 10,000 voters were turned away
from the polling places because of inadequate election facilities. A
fairly impressive exhibit of the response of American citizenship
to an appeal to American, nonpartisan, _civic interest_, in a large
cosmopolitan city, regardless of racial complexion. Indeed, without
meaning to stress the point unduly, it may be remarked in passing
that the very few precincts which in any election failed to show a
substantial increase over the vote at the previous election, are
in every instance those in which the population is described as
predominantly of the native born.
That it was the appeal to civic interest and duty, and nothing
else, which in largest measure produced this result may be seen,
for instance, in a comparison of the registration of women in Grand
Rapids with that at the same time (February, 1919) in other Michigan
cities in which there was no such intensive campaign to get the women
out to the registration places:
TABLE XLVII
PER CENT OF WOMEN REGISTERED IN THIRTEEN MICHIGAN CITIES
============================================================
CITIES | POPULATION| WOMEN | PER CENT OF
| | REGISTERED| POPULATION
-----------------------+-----------+-----------+------------
Grand Rapids | 132,000 | 22,700 | 17.0
Saginaw | 65,000 | 8,509 | 13.0
Benton Harbor | 12,000 | 1,506 | 12.5
Traverse City | 12,000 | 1,388 | 11.6
Jackson | 50,000 | 5,388 | 10.8
Muskegon | 42,000 | 4,500 | 10.7
Bay City | 50,000 | 6,290 | 10.6
Port Huron | 25,000 | 2,706 | 10.1
Flint | 70,000 | 6,906 | 9.9
Kalamazoo | 50,166 | 4,308 | 8.6
Detroit | 986,699 | 65,040 | 6.5
Lansing | 55,000 | 3,000 | 6.3
Cadillac | 10,000 | 513 | 5.1
-----------------------+-----------+-----------+------------
Totals and average | 1,591,865 | 135,344 | 8.5
============================================================
Even then, however, the Grand Rapids movement was spreading to other
Michigan cities; some of the results of that influence may well be
visible in the larger percentages shown by some of these cities.
Since then, indeed, the movement has become state-wide; and the
results already visible show notably the same facts and tendencies so
strikingly exhibited in the case of Grand Rapids, where it began.
MUNICIPAL VOTERS’ LEAGUE OF CHICAGO
The most conspicuously successful effort to mobilize all the
resources of a great city behind the general movement for honesty and
efficiency in city government is undoubtedly the Municipal Voters’
League of Chicago. Its record of accomplishment is too long and too
brilliant to permit any serious discouragement from the fact that
immediately following the war there appeared to be a setback and
reaction in Chicago’s local elections. For the time being there
seems to be everywhere a recession in nearly all forms of social
idealism. That is the inevitable result of the moral overstrain that
accompanies war. Much work must be done over again, but, at the
worst, it must be recognized that the tide of advance during the past
quarter-century left marks which will not be forgotten; standards
of social welfare and responsibility which, in the long run, will
continue to stand as a minimum of progress.
Another thing: Into Chicago has come, during the past few years, a
vast population of negroes from the South, among whom never anywhere
has a particle of work been done tending to teach them the smallest
thing about political responsibility or civic pride. In the election
of April, 1919, when William Hale Thompson was re-elected mayor of
Chicago, despite the opposition of all the constructive elements
in the city, a good deal more than half of Thompson’s plurality
was gained in the Second Ward, which is _the_ negro ward of the
city. It would be misleading to generalize from the results in the
foreign wards, because the issues were greatly confused by the war
and accusations of pro-Germanism against Thompson. Even so, Thompson
in that election carried only one of the heavily German wards. In
some of the wards, dominated by native-born voters, he won because,
in spite of his alleged pro-Germanism, he was the candidate of
the dyed-in-the-wool, stand-pat Republicans. The issue of decent
government, by which one would test the constructive influence of any
group of voters, was swamped in a wave of passion. So for any general
judgment of the response of racial groups, or of the foreign-born
voters as a whole, we must consider the whole experience of the
Municipal Voters’ League during its effort of twenty-five years to
raise the quality of character and public service in the city’s board
of aldermen.
The genius of this organization of public-spirited volunteers lies in
its reliance wholly upon _publicity of the records of candidates_.
These records, carefully investigated, with full opportunity for the
candidates or their friends to bring forward any facts or arguments
in their behalf, were published in the newspapers and spread
broadcast by means of pamphlets. The influence has been enormous and
accelerating. In the early days the main stress was laid upon mere
personal character--candidates must not be thieves; increasingly
during succeeding years the test came to be that of _capacity_ as
well as character. The war reactions and results have not destroyed,
but only interrupted, this magnificent work.
How did the foreign-born voter respond to this effort and propaganda?
The answer to this question, as found all through the twenty-odd
years before the entrance of the United States into the war, is
one of the most heartening things in American politics. But this
statement must be taken with discrimination, and subject to certain
qualifications. The League has had its hardest fights, and produced
the least results, in those wards where solid blocks of immigrants
of some one racial complexion encouraged a racial isolation; or
where great masses of population were under the domination of some
reactionary political or religious leadership, having some interest
in maintaining a subservient representation in the City Hall. In
the centers of poverty, where political strength is maintained by
leaders of the old type through control of day-labor jobs, gifts
of coal, shoes, and other forms of charity, it is difficult to
interest a population to whom even a vision of clean streets is of
importance secondary to to-day’s experience of empty stomachs. In a
general way it may be said that the degree of response to movements
like the Municipal Voters’ League is roughly commensurate with the
degree of material prosperity. As the immigrant gains in quality and
wage-return of his job, acquaintance with American essentials, and
comfort of material surroundings, he gains interest in the ethical
aspect of community life.
But the uplifting influence of a campaign like that of the League
penetrates even into the most obdurate regions. The Seventeenth
Ward of Chicago was long the scene of one of the hardest fights of
the League. Through the hard work of Prof. Graham Taylor and the
group of good citizens centering in and about the Chicago-Commons
social settlement, the work came to great success--and held it--as
long as the population was characteristically Scandinavian, German,
Scotch, and Irish. In recent years, however, these people gradually
moved out of the ward, and it came to be heavily Polish, under the
domination of a reactionary control of the Polish Catholic Church.
This element always has been hard to influence, and its priests are
active directly in politics. Nevertheless, in a recent aldermanic
campaign, a Polish Catholic alderman running for re-election told at
a public meeting how his daughter came home from school crying, with
a newspaper in her hand, demanding to know what her father had done
to justify the newspapers in saying he had a bad record--his record
set forth in cold type by the Municipal Voters’ League. This alderman
at that meeting declared that he had been receiving patronage for his
vote in the council, that he was going to drop that, try hereafter to
serve the best interests of his ward, and make a record of which his
children could be proud.
The Italians as a whole, in Chicago as in many other places, have
been more united in their action than most other racial groups,
and under their ancient habits of padrone leadership have shown
a tendency to accept boss rule, though the Italian voter as an
individual is no more amenable to corrupt influences than voters of
any other race.
Over the whole history of the League’s activity it has been true that
the races most responsive to its appeal are the Scandinavian, German,
Irish, and Bohemian. Given a candidate of any race, other things
being equal, the voters of that race will support him; as between two
competing outsiders, the voters of these races have been more than
willing to heed disinterested appeals from the point of view of good
government. Some of the best aldermen during the past twenty years in
Chicago have been Germans. The late Alderman Beilfuss, Republican,
a native of Germany and an excellent official, was re-elected time
after time in the Fifteenth Ward; but as the Scandinavians and
Germans--especially Lutheran Germans--moved away and the scale of
prosperity in the ward’s population deteriorated, his pluralities
diminished, and in the year before his death he won by a narrow
margin.
In the predominantly Bohemian Twelfth Ward aldermanic candidates
recommended by the League were elected almost without exception for
many years, regardless of political alignment. In that ward, from
1904 to 1909, inclusive, the Republican Bohemian and the Democratic
German candidates, both indorsed by the League, alternated in winning
elections, the pluralities running from 3,400 on one side to 3,100 on
the other--in a ward casting a total of perhaps 15,000 votes a shift
of 6,500. When Mayor Thompson, Republican, in 1915, carried the ward
by nearly 4,000, Alderman Kerner, a Bohemian Democrat of excellent
record, carried it in the same election by 3,350. In other words,
there was a politically independent swing of nearly one-half of the
15,000 votes cast in the election.
The Irish voters generally pay close attention to what the League
says. In the spring campaign of 1919, the League’s condemnation of
a Democratic Irish alderman in the Thirtieth Ward furnished his
opponent, whom the League recommended, with enough ammunition to
defeat him for renomination, whereupon an Irish Republican, a former
alderman with a good record, who received the final indorsement
of the League, turned in and beat the Democratic nominee. In the
Thirteenth Ward, largely Irish, which Mayor Thompson, Republican,
lost in 1919 by more than 4,000, a Democratic alderman condemned by
the League was defeated by a native-born Republican whom the League
indorsed, by more than 1,800 votes.
SOME OTHER INSTANCES
Dr. Charles W. Eliot told the Good Government Conference at
Cincinnati in 1909 of an incident in Massachusetts which reflected
the interest of foreign-born voters in political questions on their
merits regardless of racial or religious considerations:
A few years ago, largely through the efforts of a single citizen,
the Massachusetts Legislature changed the number of the school
committee of Boston from twenty-four to five--in itself a
prodigious improvement. Now, Boston is the home of three Roman
Catholic races, the Irish, the French Canadians, and the Italians.
The Italians have lately come in large numbers, and many of them
are from southern Italy and not from northern Italy. What did the
voters of Boston do in electing a school committee of five at
large? The election was not by wards, but at large. They elected
at the very first election--and have maintained the composition of
the committee as then determined ever since--two Catholics, two
Protestants, and one Jew, and the Jew has lately been the chairman
of the committee. Now is not that creditable to the Roman Catholic
majority in the city of Boston? They have a clear majority.
Moreover, does it not tell us something encouraging about the
manner in which voters of foreign birth will use the power of the
vote in our country?
A. C. Pleydell of New York, on the same occasion, contributed a
testimony of the same general character:
In New Jersey a large settlement of Italians in a small country
township until lately have been the prey of the political leaders,
who are just as corrupt as in the city. A gentleman whom I know
who is, I believe, of a different political faith, moved out there
some years ago and began to take an interest in the local life of
the community. He started to clean up the school board and get
decent schoolhouses. There were sixty or seventy Italian children
at that little village school. The village has a population of
only a few hundred. This man got subscriptions from these poor
people, a little help from the outside, and contributed something
himself. For two or three years they have had neighborhood meetings
without regard to party, which these foreigners attended. One of
the finest and most inspiring sights I have ever seen was at the
school festival held in that little hall, largely filled by these
foreigners.... These foreigners, under the leadership of this one
man, have formed a good-government organization that has spread to
neighboring townships.... He uses for its motto, “Put the circles
on the square,” the square being the township and the circles being
little group organizations. They have broken up the political ring
in that township to-day by independent voting and nominations;
... as a result of this work in that township the movement has
spread into another township which has been more corrupt, although
inhabited almost altogether by native Americans. At the last
election the people in that other township took an inspiration from
the work that had been done by the foreign Italian population, and
cleaned up their township....
There is just as much democracy in those people as we have, and we
do not want to lose sight of the fact that they are human beings
just like everybody else. I am the son of an immigrant from another
part of Europe. The immigrants from the southern part have just as
much ambition as the immigrants from the northern part.
I. M. Wise of Cincinnati in the same discussion said:
We have had a very fine example of the independence of the foreign
voter during the last few years in Cincinnati. We had a movement
started for the purpose of electing a prosecutor, and we found,
after investigating the returns of the election, that the victory
was due almost entirely to the foreign vote. But we had another
example some years ago when there was a movement to sell the
Cincinnati Southern Railway. This measure was defeated by a small
majority, due entirely to the German citizens who usually show more
independence than the other foreign citizens.
William Bennett Munro, in his _Government of American Cities_,[172]
discussing the reasons for the political misleading of the
foreign-born voter by corrupt leadership, points out that “the
discreet and sober use of the ballot is something not to be learned
in a day or even in a generation,” and that “it is not a matter for
surprise, then, if alien-born voters have often proved easy prey to
the sophistry and cajolery of claptrap politicians.” He says, further:
We have the testimony of seasoned campaigners that the alien-born
voter is inclined to think for himself if he has the opportunity;
but too often he does not secure even that small amount of fair
information which is necessary to furnish food for thought. As
a rule, practically all he gets concerning the facts of the
municipal situation comes to him in such form that it leads to one
conclusion only.... Experience has proved that he cannot always be
stampeded by appeals to class prejudice, or delivered blindly to
some political faction. Given a fair chance, he is, according to
authoritative testimony, a voter of at least normal independence.