Produced by Richard J. Shiffer and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's Note: Every effort has been made to replicate this
text as faithfully as possible, including obsolete and variant
spellings and other inconsistencies. Text that has been changed to
correct an obvious error is noted at the end of this ebook.
Also, many occurrences of mismatched single and double quotes remain
as they were in the original.]
[Illustration: Susan B. Anthony. (Signed: Affectionately Yours Susan B. Anthony)]
THE HISTORY
OF
WOMAN SUFFRAGE
EDITED BY
SUSAN B. ANTHONY &
IDA HUSTED HARPER
ILLUSTRATED WITH COPPERPLATE AND PHOTOGRAVURE
ENGRAVINGS
_IN FOUR VOLUMES_
VOL. IV.
1883-1900
"PERFECT EQUALITY OF RIGHTS FOR WOMAN, CIVIL, LEGAL
AND POLITICAL"
SUSAN B. ANTHONY
17 MADISON STREET, ROCHESTER, N. Y.
COPYRIGHT, 1902, BY SUSAN B. ANTHONY
THE HOLLENBECK PRESS
INDIANAPOLIS
* * * * Make me respect my material so much that I dare not slight my
work. Help me to deal very honestly with words and with people,
because they are both alive. Show me that, as in a river, so in
writing, clearness is the best quality, and a little that is pure is
worth more than much that is mixed. Teach me to see the local color
without being blind to the inner light. Give me an ideal that will
stand the strain of weaving into human stuff on the loom of the real.
Keep me from caring more for books than for folks, for art than for
life. Steady me to do my full stint of work as well as I can, and when
that is done, stop me, pay me what wages thou wilt, and help me to say
from a quiet heart a grateful Amen.
HENRY VAN DYKE.
PREFACE
After the movement for woman suffrage, which commenced about the
middle of the nineteenth century, had continued for twenty-five years,
the feeling became strongly impressed upon its active promoters, Miss
Susan B. Anthony and Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, that the records
connected with it should be secured to posterity. With Miss Anthony,
indeed, the idea had been ever present, and from the beginning she had
carefully preserved as far as possible the letters, speeches and
newspaper clippings, accounts of conventions and legislative and
congressional reports. By 1876 they were convinced through various
circumstances that the time had come for writing the history. So
little did they foresee the magnitude which this labor would assume
that they made a mutual agreement to accept no engagements for four
months, expecting to finish it within that time, as they contemplated
nothing more than a small volume, probably a pamphlet of a few hundred
pages. Miss Anthony packed in trunks and boxes the accumulations of
the years and shipped them to Mrs. Stanton's home in Tenafly, N. J.,
where the two women went cheerfully to work.
Mrs. Stanton was the matchless writer, Miss Anthony the collector of
material, the searcher of statistics, the business manager, the keen
critic, the detector of omissions, chronological flaws and
discrepancies in statement such as are unavoidable even with the most
careful historian. On many occasions they called to their aid for
historical facts Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, one of the most logical,
scientific and fearless writers of her day. To Mrs. Gage Vol. I of the
History of Woman Suffrage is wholly indebted for the first two
chapters--Preceding Causes and Woman in Newspapers, and for the last
chapter--Woman, Church and State, which she later amplified in a book;
and Vol. II for the first chapter--Woman's Patriotism in the Civil
War.
When the allotted time had expired the work had far exceeded its
original limits and yet seemed hardly begun. Its authors were amazed
at the amount of history which already had been made and still more
deeply impressed with the desirability of preserving the story of the
early struggle, but both were in the regular employ of lecture bureaus
and henceforth could give only vacations to the task. They were
entirely without the assistance of stenographers and typewriters, who
at the present day relieve brain workers of so large a part of the
physical strain. A labor which was to consume four months eventually
extended through ten years and was not completed until the closing
days of 1885. The pamphlet of a few hundred pages had expanded into
three great volumes of 1,000 pages each, and enough material remained
unused to fill another.[1]
It was almost wholly due to Miss Anthony's clear foresight and
painstaking habits that the materials were gathered and preserved
during all the years, and it was entirely owing to her unequaled
determination and persistence that the History was written. The demand
for Mrs. Stanton on the platform and the cares of a large family made
this vast amount of writing a most heroic effort, and one which
doubtless she would have been tempted to evade had it not been for the
relentless mentor at her side, helping to bear her burdens and
overcome the obstacles, and continually pointing out the necessity
that the history of this movement for the emancipation of women should
be recorded, in justice to those who carried it forward and as an
inspiration to the workers of the future. And so together, for a long
decade, these two great souls toiled in the solitude of home just as
together they fought in the open field, not for personal gain or
glory, but for the sake of a cause to which they had consecrated their
lives. Had it not been for their patient and unselfish labor the story
of the hard conditions under which the pioneers struggled to lift
woman out of her subjection, the bitterness of the prejudice, the
cruelty of the persecution, never would have been told. In all the
years that have passed no one else has attempted to tell it, and
should any one desire to do so it is doubtful if, even at this early
date, enough of the records could be found for the most superficial
account. In not a library can the student who wishes to trace this
movement to its beginning obtain the necessary data except in these
three volumes, which will become still more valuable as the years go
by and it nears success.
Miss Anthony began this work in 1876 without a dollar in hand for its
publication. She never had the money in advance for any of her
undertakings, but she went forward and accomplished them, and when the
people saw that they were good they usually repaid the amount she had
advanced from her own small store. In this case she resolved to use
the whole of it and all she could earn in the future rather than not
publish the History. Mrs. Elizabeth Thompson, of New York, a generous
patron of good works, gave her the first $1,000 in 1880, but this did
not cover the expenses that had been actually incurred thus far in its
preparation. She was in nowise discouraged, however, but kept steadily
on during every moment which could be spared by Mrs. Stanton and
herself, absolutely confident that in some way the necessary funds
would be obtained. Her strong faith was justified, for the first week
of 1882 came a notice from Wendell Phillips that Mrs. Eliza Jackson
Eddy, of Boston, had left her a large legacy to be used according to
her own judgment "for the advancement of woman's cause." Litigation by
an indirect heir deprived her of this money for over three years, but
in April, 1885, she received $24,125.
The first volume of the History had been issued in May, 1881, and the
second in April, 1882. In June, 1885, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony
set resolutely to work and labored without ceasing until the next
November, when the third volume was sent to the publishers. With the
bequest Miss Anthony paid the debts that had been incurred, replaced
her own fund, of which every dollar had been used, and brought out
this last volume. All were published at a time when paper and other
materials were at a high price. The fine steel engravings alone cost
$5,000. On account of the engagements of the editors it was necessary
to employ proofreaders and indexers, and because of the many years
over which the work had stretched an immense number of changes had to
be made in composition, so that a large part of the legacy was
consumed.
The money which Miss Anthony now had enabled her to carry out her
long-cherished project to put this History free of charge in the
public libraries. It was thus placed in twelve hundred in the United
States and Europe. Mrs. Stanton and Mrs. Gage, who had contributed
their services without price, naturally felt that it should be sold
instead of given away, and in order to have a perfectly free hand she
purchased their rights. In addition to the libraries, she has given it
to hundreds of schools and to countless individuals, writers,
speakers, etc., whom she thought it would enable to do better work for
the franchise. For seventeen years she has paid storage on the volumes
and the stereotype plates. During this time there has been some demand
for the books from those who were able and willing to pay, but much
the largest part of the labor and money expended were a direct
donation to the cause of woman suffrage.
From the time the last volume was finished it was Miss Anthony's
intention, if she should live twenty years longer, to issue a fourth
containing the history which would be made during that period, and for
this purpose she still preserved the records. As the century drew near
a close, bringing with it the end of her four-score years, the desire
grew still stronger to put into permanent shape the continued story of
a contest which already had extended far beyond the extreme limits
imagined when she dedicated to it the full power of her young
womanhood with its wealth of dauntless courage and unfailing hope. She
resigned the presidency of the National Association in February, 1900,
which marked her eightieth birthday, in order that she might carry out
this project and one or two others of especial importance. Among her
birthday gifts she received $1,000 from friends in all parts of the
country, and this sum she resolved to apply to the contemplated
volume. One of the other objects which she had in view was the
collecting of a large fund to be invested and the income used in work
for the enfranchisement of women. Already about $3,000 had been
subscribed.
By the time the first half year had passed, nature exacted tribute for
six decades of unceasing and unparalleled toil, and it became evident
that the idea of gathering a reserve fund would have to be abandoned.
The donors of the $3,000 were consulted and all gave cordial assent to
have their portion applied to the publication of the fourth volume of
the History. The largest amount, $1,000, had been contributed by Mrs.
Pauline Agassiz Shaw, of Boston. Dr. Cordelia A. Greene, of Castile,
N. Y., had given $500 and Mrs. Emma J. Bartol, of Philadelphia, $200.
The other contributions ranged all the way down to a few dollars,
which in many cases represented genuine sacrifice on the part of the
givers. It is not practicable to publish the list of the women in
full. They will be sufficiently rewarded in the consciousness of
having helped to realize Miss Anthony's dream of finishing the story,
to the end of her own part in it, of a great progressive movement in
which they were her fellow-workers and loyal friends.
Mrs. Gage passed away in 1898. Although Mrs. Stanton is still living
as this volume goes to the publishers in 1902, and evinces her mental
vigor at the age of eighty-seven in frequent magazine and newspaper
articles, she could not be called upon for this heavy and exacting
task. It seemed to Miss Anthony that the one who had recently
completed her Biography, in its preparation arranging and classifying
her papers of the past sixty years, and who necessarily had made a
thorough study of the suffrage movement from its beginning, should
share with her this arduous undertaking. The invitation was accepted
with much reluctance because of a full knowledge of the great labor
and responsibility involved. It must be confessed that even a strong
sense of obligation to further the cause of woman's enfranchisement
would not have been a sufficient incentive, but personal devotion to a
beloved and honored leader outweighed all selfish considerations. It
is to Miss Anthony, however, that the world is indebted for this as
well as the other volumes. It was she who conceived the idea; through
her came the money for its publication; for several years her own home
has been given up to the mass of material, the typewriters, the coming
and going of countless packages, the indescribable annoyances and
burdens connected with a matter of this kind. In addition she has
borne from her private means a considerable portion of the expenses,
and has endured the physical weariness and mental anxiety at a time
when she has earned the right to complete rest and freedom from care.
There is not a chapter which has not had the inestimable benefit of
her acute criticism and matured judgment.
The peculiar difficulties of historical work can be understood only by
those who have experienced them. General information is the easiest of
all things to obtain--exact information the hardest, and a history
that is not accurate has no practical utility. If a reader discover
one mistake it vitiates the whole book. Every historian knows how
common it is to find several totally different statements of the same
occurrence, each apparently as authentic as the others. He also knows
the eel-like elusiveness of dates and the flat contradictions of
statistics which seem to disprove absolutely the adage that "figures
do not lie." He has suffered the nightmare of wrestling with proper
names; and if he is conscientious he has agonized over the attempt to
do exact justice to the actors in the drama which he is depicting and
yet not detract from its value by loading it with trivial details, of
vital moment to those who were concerned in them but of no importance
to future readers. All of these embarrassments are intensified in a
history of a movement for many years unnoticed or greatly
misrepresented in the public press, and its records usually not
considered of sufficient value to be officially preserved. None,
however, has required such supreme courage and faithfulness from its
adherents and this fact makes all the more obligatory the preserving
of their names and deeds.
To collect the needful information from fifty States and Territories
and arrange it for publication has required the careful and constant
work of over two years. It has been necessary many times to appeal to
public officials, who have been most obliging, but the main dependence
has been on the women of various localities who are connected with the
suffrage associations. These women have spent weeks of time and labor,
writing letters, visiting libraries, examining records, and often
leaving their homes and going to the State capital to search the
archives. All this has been done without financial compensation, and
it is largely through their assistance that the editors have been able
to prepare this volume. To give an idea of the exacting work required
it may be stated that to obtain authentic data on one particular point
the writer of the Kansas chapter sent 198 letters to 178 city clerks.
The meager record of Florida necessitated about thirty letters of
inquiry. Several thousand were sent out by the editors of the History,
while the number exchanged within the various States is beyond
computation.
The demand is widespread that the information which this book contains
should be put into accessible shape. Miss Anthony herself and the
suffrage headquarters in New York are flooded with inquiries for
statistics as to the gains which have been made, the laws for women,
the present status of the question and arguments that can be used in
the debates which are now of frequent occurrence in Legislatures,
universities, schools and clubs in all parts of the country.
Practically everything that can be desired on these points will be
found herein. The first twenty-two chapters contain the whole argument
in favor of granting the franchise to women, as every phase of the
question is touched and every objection considered by the ablest of
speakers. It has been a special object to present here in compact form
the reasons on which is based the claim for woman suffrage. In Chapter
XXIV and those following are included the laws pertaining to women,
their educational and industrial opportunities, the amount of suffrage
they possess, the offices they may fill, legislative action on matters
concerning them, and the part which the suffrage associations have had
in bringing about present conditions. There are also chapters on the
progress made in foreign countries and on the organized work of women
in other lines besides that of the franchise. All the care possible
has been taken to make each chapter accurate and complete.
Beginning with 1884, where Vol. III closes, the present volume ends
with the century. This is not a book which must necessarily wait upon
posterity for its readers, but it is filled with live, up-to-date
information. Its editors take the greatest pleasure in presenting it
to the young, active, progressive men and women of the present day,
who, without doubt, will bring to a successful end the long and
difficult contest to secure that equality of rights which belongs
alike to all the citizens of this largest of republics and greatest of
nations.
I. H. H.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The reader can not fail to be interested in the personal story of
the writing of these books as related in the Reminiscences of
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony--the
many journeys made by the big boxes of documents from the home of one
to that of the other; the complications with those who were gathering
data in their respective localities; the trials with publishers; the
delays, disappointments and vexations, all interspersed and brightened
with many humorous features.
INTRODUCTION.
It has been frequently said that the first three volumes of the
History of Woman Suffrage, which bring the record to twenty years ago,
represent the seed-sowing time of the movement. They do far more than
this, for seeds sown in the early days which they describe would have
fallen upon ground so stony that if they had sprung up they would soon
have withered away. The pioneers in the work for the redemption of
women found an unbroken field, not fallow from lying idle, but arid
and barren, filled with the unyielding rocks of prejudice and choked
with the thorns of conservatism. It required many years of labor as
hard as that endured by the forefathers in wresting their lands from
undisturbed nature, before the ground was even broken to receive the
seed. Then followed the long period of persistent tilling and sowing
which brought no reaping until the last quarter of the century, when
the scanty harvest began to be gathered. The yield has seemed small
indeed at the end of each twelvemonth and it is only when viewed in
the aggregate that its size can be appreciated. The condition of woman
to-day compared with that of last year seems unchanged, but contrasted
with that of fifty years ago it presents as great a revolution as the
world has ever witnessed in this length of time.
If the first organized demand for the rights of woman--made at the
memorable convention of Seneca Falls, N. Y., in 1848--had omitted the
one for the franchise, those who made it would have lived to see all
granted. It asked for woman the right to have personal freedom, to
acquire an education, to earn a living, to claim her wages, to own
property, to make contracts, to bring suit, to testify in court, to
obtain a divorce for just cause, to possess her children, to claim a
fair share of the accumulations during marriage. An examination of
Chap. XXIV and the following chapters in this volume will show that in
many of the States all these privileges are now accorded, and in not
one are all refused, but when this declaration was framed all were
denied by every State. For the past half century there has been a
steady advance in the direction of equal rights for women. In many
instances these have been granted in response to the direct efforts of
women themselves; in others without exertion on their part but through
the example of neighboring States and as a result of the general trend
toward a long-delayed justice. Enough has been accomplished in all of
the above lines to make it absolutely certain that within a few years
women everywhere in the United States will enjoy entire equality of
legal, civil and social rights.
Behind all of these has been the persistent demand for political
rights, and the question naturally arises, "Why do these continue
to be denied? Educated, property-owning, self-reliant and
public-spirited, why are women still refused a voice in the
Government? Citizens in the fullest sense of the word, why are they
deprived of the suffrage in a country whose institutions rest upon
individual representation?"
There are many reasons, but the first and by far the most important is
the fact that this right, and this alone of all that have had to be
gained for woman, can be secured only through Constitutional Law. All
others have rested upon statute law, or upon the will of a board of
trustees, or of a few individuals, or have needed no official or
formal sanction. The suffrage alone must be had through a change of
the constitution of the State and this can be obtained only by consent
of the majority of the voters. Therefore this most valuable of all
rights--the one which if possessed by women at the beginning would
have brought all the others without a struggle--is placed absolutely
in the hands of men to be granted or withheld at will from women. It
is an unjust condition which does not exist even in a monarchy of the
Old World, and it makes of the United States instead of a true
republic an oligarchy in which one-half of the citizens have entire
control of the other half. There is not another country having an
elected representative body, where this body itself may not extend the
suffrage. While the writing of this volume has been in progress the
Parliament of Australia by a single Act has fully enfranchised the
800,000 women of that commonwealth. The Parliament of Great Britain
has conferred on women every form of suffrage except that for its own
members, and there is a favorable prospect of this being granted long
before the women of the United States have a similar privilege.
Not another nation is hampered by a written Federal Constitution which
it is almost impossible to change, and by forty-five written State
constitutions none of which can be altered in the smallest particular
except by consent of the majority of the voters. Every one of these
constitutions was framed by a convention which no woman had a voice in
selecting and of which no woman was a member. With the sole exception
of Wyoming, not one woman in the forty-five States was permitted a
vote on the constitution, and every one except Wyoming and Utah
confined its elective franchise strictly to "male" citizens.
Thus, wherever woman turns in this boasted republic, from ocean to
ocean, from lakes to gulf, seeking the citizen's right of
self-representation, she is met by a dead wall of constitutional
prohibition. It has been held in some of the States that this applies
only to State and county suffrage and that the Legislature has power
to grant the Municipal Franchise to women. Kansas is the only one,
however, which has given such a vote. A bill for this purpose passed
the Legislature of Michigan, after years of effort on the part of
women, and was at once declared unconstitutional by its Supreme Court.
Similar bills have been defeated in many Legislatures on the ground of
unconstitutionality. It is claimed generally that they may bestow
School Suffrage and this has been granted in over half the States, but
frequently it is vetoed by the Governor as unconstitutional, as has
been done several times in California. In New York, after four Acts of
the Legislature attempting to give School Suffrage to all women, three
decisions of the highest courts confined it simply to those of
villages and country districts where questions are decided at "school
meetings." Eminent lawyers hold that even this is "unconstitutional."
(See chapter on New York.) The Legislature and courts of Wisconsin
have been trying since 1885 to give complete School Suffrage to women
and yet they are enabled to exercise it this year (1902) for the first
time. (See chapter on Wisconsin.) Some State constitutions provide, as
in Rhode Island, that no form even of School Suffrage can be
conferred on women until it has been submitted as an amendment and
sanctioned by a majority of the voters.
The constitutions of a number of States declare that it shall not be
sufficient to carry an amendment for it to receive a majority of the
votes cast upon it, but it must have a majority of the largest vote
cast at the election. Not one State where this in the case ever has
been able to secure an amendment for any purpose whatever. Minnesota
submitted this question itself to the electors in 1898 in the form of
an amendment and it was carried, receiving a total of 102,641, yet the
largest number of votes cast at that election was 251,250, so if its
own provisions had been required it would have been lost. Nebraska is
about to make an effort to get rid of such a provision, but, as this
can be done only by another amendment to the constitution, the dilemma
is presented of the improbability of securing a vote for it which
shall be equal to the majority of the highest number cast at the
general election. Since it is impossible to get such a vote even on
questions to which there is no special objection, it is clearly
evident that an amendment enfranchising women, to which there is a
large and strong opposition, would have no chance whatever in States
making the above requirement.
It then remains to consider the situation in those States where only a
majority of the votes cast upon the amendment itself is required. One
or two instances will show the stubborn objection which exists among
the masses of men to the very idea of woman suffrage. In 1887 the
Legislature of New Jersey passed a law granting School Suffrage to
women in villages and country districts. After they had exercised it
until 1894 the Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional, as
"the Legislature can not enlarge or diminish the class of voters." The
women decided it was worth while to preserve even this scrap of
suffrage, so they made a vigorous effort to secure from the
Legislature the submission of an amendment which should give it to
them constitutionally. The resolution for this had to pass two
successive Legislatures, and it happened in this case that by a
technicality three were necessary, but with hard work and a petition
signed by 7,000 the amendment was finally submitted in 1897. The
unvarying testimony of the school authorities was that the women had
used their vote wisely and to the great advantage of the schools
during the seven years; there was no organized opposition from the
class who might object to the Full Suffrage for women lest their
business should be injured, or that other class who might fear their
personal liberty would be curtailed; yet the proposition to restore to
women in the villages and country districts the right simply to vote
for school trustees was defeated by 75,170 noes, 65,029 ayes--over
10,000 majority.
South Dakota as a Territory permitted women to vote for all school
officers. It entered the Union in 1889 with a clause in its
constitution authorizing them to vote "at any election held solely for
school purposes." They soon found that this did not include State and
county superintendents, who are voted for at general elections, and
that in order to get back their Territorial rights an amendment would
have to be submitted to the electors. This was done by the Legislature
of 1893. There had not been the slightest criticism of the way in
which they had used their school suffrage during the past fourteen
years, no class was antagonized, and yet this amendment was voted down
by 22,682 noes, 17,010 ayes, an opposing majority of 5,672.
With these examples in two widely-separated parts of the country, the
old and the new, representing not only crystallized prejudice in the
one but inborn opposition in both to any step toward enfranchising
women, and with this depending absolutely on the will of the voters,
is it a matter of wonder that its progress has been so slow? If the
question were submitted in any State to-day whether, for instance, all
who did not pay taxes should be disfranchised, and only taxpayers were
allowed to vote upon it, it would be carried by a large majority. If
it were submitted whether all owning property above a certain amount
should be disfranchised, and only those who owned less than this, or
nothing, were allowed to vote, it would be carried unanimously. No
class of men could get any electoral right whatever if it depended
wholly on the consent of another class whose interests supposedly lay
in withholding it. Political, not moral influence removed the property
restrictions from the suffrage in order to build up a great party--the
Democratic--which because of its enfranchisement of wage-earning men
has received their support for eighty years. After the Civil War,
although the Republican party was in absolute control, amendments to
the State constitutions for striking out the word "white," in order
to enfranchise colored men, were defeated in one after another of the
Northern States, even in Kansas, the most radical of them all in its
anti-slavery sentiment. It finally became so evident that this
concession would not be granted by the voters that Congress was
obliged to submit first one and then a second amendment to the Federal
Constitution to secure it. But even then the ratification of the
necessary three-fourths of the Legislatures could be obtained only
because it was positively certain that through this action an immense
addition would be made to the Republican electorate. Now after a lapse
of thirty years this same party looks on unmoved at the violation of
these amendments in every Southern State because it is believed that
thus there can be, through white suffrage, the building up of the
party in that section which the colored vote has not been able to
accomplish.
The most superficial examination of the conditions which govern the
franchise answers the question why, after fifty years of effort, so
little progress has been made in obtaining it for women. Of late years
every new or "third" party which is organized declares for woman
suffrage. This is partly because such parties come into existence to
carry out reforms in which they believe women can help, and partly
because in their weak state they are ready to grasp at straws. While
giving them full credit for such recognition, whatever may be its
inspiring motive, it is clearly evident that the franchise must come
to women through the dominant parties. If either of these could have
had assurance of receiving the majority of the woman's vote it would
have been obtained for her long ago without effort on her part, just
as the workingman's and the colored man's were secured for them, but
this has been impossible. Even in the four States where women now have
the full suffrage neither party has been able to claim a distinct
advantage from it. At the last Presidential election two of the four
went Democratic and two Republican. In Colorado, where women owed
their enfranchisement very largely to the Populists, that party was
deposed from power at the first election where they voted and never
has been reinstated. Although there was no justification for holding
women responsible, they were so held, and the party consequently did
not extend the franchise to women in other States where it might have
done so. Many consider that the principles of the Republican party in
general would be more apt to commend themselves to women than those of
the Democratic, but others believe that, so great is their antipathy
to war and all the evils connected with it and the consequences
following it, they would have opposed the party responsible for these
during the past four years. It may be accepted, however, as the most
probable view that women will divide on the main issues in much the
same proportion as men. From this standpoint neither party will see
any especial advantage in their enfranchisement, and both will look
with disfavor upon adding to the immense number of voters who must now
be reckoned with in every campaign an equally great number who are
likely to require an entirely different management. There is a certain
element in the leadership of all parties which is not especially
objectionable to men, but would not be tolerated by women. Candidates
who would be perfectly acceptable to men if they were sound on the
political issues might be wholly repudiated by the women of their own
party. If temperance and morality were made requisites many leaders
and officials who now hold high position would be permanently retired.
These are all reasons which appeal to politicians for deferring the
day of woman suffrage as long as possible.
Each of the two dominant parties is largely controlled by what are
known as the liquor interests. Their influence begins with the
National Government, which receives from them billions of revenue; it
extends to the States, to which they pay millions; to the cities,
whose income they increase by hundreds of thousands; to the farmers,
who find in breweries and distilleries the best market for their
grain. There is no hamlet so small as not to be touched by their
ramifications. No "trust" ever formed can compare with them in the
power which they exercise. That their business shall not be interfered
with they must possess a certain authority over Congress and
Legislatures. They and the various institutions connected with them
control millions of votes. They are among the largest contributors to
political campaigns. There are few legislators who do not owe their
election in a greater or less degree to the influence wielded by these
liquor interests, which are positively, unanimously and unalterably
opposed to woman suffrage. This can be gained only by the submission
of an amendment to the National or State constitutions, and for that
women must go to the Congress or the Legislatures. What can they offer
to offset the influences behind these bodies? They have no money to
contribute for party purposes. They represent no constituency and can
not pledge a single vote, a situation in which no other class is
placed. They ask men to divide a power of which they now have a
monopoly; to give up a sure thing for an uncertainty; to sacrifice
every selfish interest--and all in the name of abstract justice, a
word which has no place in politics. Was there ever apparently a more
hopeless quest?
With the exception of the three amendments made necessary by the Civil
War, the Federal Constitution has not been amended for ninety-eight
years, and there is strong opposition to any changes in that
instrument. If Congress would submit an article to the State
Legislatures for the enfranchisement of women the situation would be
vastly simplified and eventually the requisite three-fourths for
ratification could be secured, but undoubtedly a number of States will
have to follow the example of those in the far West in granting the
suffrage before this is done. The question at present, therefore, may
be considered as resting with the various Legislatures. With all the
powerful influences above mentioned strongly intrenched and pitted
against the women who come empty-handed, it is naturally a most
difficult matter to secure the submission of an amendment where there
is the slightest chance of its carrying. With the two exceptions of
Colorado and Idaho, it may be safely asserted that in every case where
one has been submitted it has been done simply to please the women and
to get rid of them, and with the full assurance that it would not be
carried. Two conspicuous examples of the impossibility of obtaining an
amendment where it would be likely to receive a majority vote are to
be found in California and Iowa. In the former State one went before
the electors in 1896, and, although the conditions were most
unfavorable and the strongest possible fight was made against it, so
large an affirmative sentiment was developed that it was clearly
evident it would be carried on a second trial. Up to that time the
women of this State had very little difficulty in securing suffrage
bills, but since then the Legislature has persistently refused to
submit another amendment. (See chapter on California.)
In probably no State is the general sentiment so strongly in favor of
woman suffrage as in Iowa, and yet for the past thirty years the women
have tried in vain to secure from the Legislature the submission of an
amendment--simply an opportunity to carry their case to the electors.
(See chapter on Iowa.) The politics of that State is practically
controlled by the great brewing interests and the balance of power
rests in the German vote. It is believed that woman suffrage would be
detrimental to their interests and they will not allow it. Here, as in
many States, a resolution for an amendment must be acted upon by two
successive Legislatures. If a majority of either party should pass
this resolution, the enemy would be able to defeat its nominees for
the next Legislature before the women could get the chance to vote for
them. In other words, all the forces hostile to woman suffrage are
already enfranchised and are experienced, active and influential in
politics, while the women themselves can give no assistance, and the
men in every community who favor it are very largely those who have
not an aggressive political influence. This very refusal of certain
Legislatures to let the voters pass upon the question is the strongest
possible indication that they fear the result. If women could be
enfranchised simply by an Act of Congress they would have an
opportunity to vote for their benefactors at the same time as the
enemies would vote against them, and thus the former would not, as at
present, run the risk of personal defeat and the overthrow of their
party by espousing the cause of woman suffrage.
If, however, Legislatures were willing to submit the question it is
doubtful whether, under present conditions, it could be carried in any
large number of States, as the same elements which influence
legislators act also upon the voters through the party "machines."
Amendments to strike the word "male" from the suffrage clause of the
Constitution have been submitted by ten States, and by five of these
twice--Kansas, 1867-94; Michigan, 1874; Colorado, 1877-93; Nebraska,
1882; Oregon, 1884-1900; Rhode Island, 1886; Washington, 1889-98;
South Dakota, 1890-98; California, 1896; Idaho, 1896. Out of the
fifteen trials the amendment has been adopted but twice--in Colorado
and Idaho. In these two cases it was indorsed by all the political
parties and carried with their permission. Wyoming and Utah placed
equal suffrage in the constitution under which they entered
Statehood. In both, as Territories, women had had the full
franchise--in Wyoming twenty-one and in Utah seventeen years--and
public sentiment was strongly in favor. In the States where the
question was defeated it had practically no party support.
Aside from all political hostility, however, woman suffrage has to
face a tremendous opposition from other sources. The attitude of a
remonstrant is the natural one of the vast majority of people. Their
first cry on coming into the world, if translated, would be, "I
object." They are opposed on principle to every innovation, and the
greatest of these is the enfranchisement of women. To grant woman an
equality with man in the affairs of life is contrary to every
tradition, every precedent, every inheritance, every instinct and
every teaching. The acceptance of this idea is possible only to those
of especially progressive tendencies and a strong sense of justice,
and it is yet too soon to expect these from the majority. If it had
been necessary to have the consent of the majority of the men in every
State for women to enter the universities, to control their own
property, to engage in the various professions and occupations, to
speak from the public platform and to form great organizations, in not
one would they be enjoying these privileges to-day. It is very
probable that this would be equally true if they had depended upon the
permission of a majority of women themselves. They are more
conservative even than men, because of the narrowness and isolation of
their lives, the subjection in which they always have been held, the
severe punishment inflicted by society on those who dare step outside
the prescribed sphere, and, stronger than all, perhaps, their
religious tendencies through which it has been impressed upon them
that their subordinate position was assigned by the Divine will and
that to rebel against it is to defy the Creator. In all the
generations, Church, State and society have combined to retard the
development of women, with the inevitable result that those of every
class are narrower, more bigoted and less progressive than the men of
that class.
While the girls are crowding the colleges now until they threaten to
exceed the number of boys, the demand for the higher education was
made by the merest handful of women and granted by an equally small
number of men, who, on the boards of trustees, were able to do so,
but it would have been deferred for decades if it had depended on a
popular vote of either men or women. The pioneers in the professions
found their most trying opposition from other women, instigated by the
men who did their thinking for them to believe that the whole sex was
being disgraced. Married women almost universally were opposed to laws
which would give them control of their property, being assured by
their masculine advisers that this would deprive them of the love and
protection of their husbands. Public sentiment was wholly opposed to
these laws and no such objections ever have been made in Legislatures
even to woman suffrage as were urged against allowing a wife to own
property. The contest was won by the smallest fraction of women and a
few strong, far-seeing men, the latter actuated not alone by a
sentiment of justice but also by the desire of preventing husbands
from squandering the property which fathers had accumulated and wished
to secure to their daughters, and fortunate indeed was it that this
action did not have to be ratified by the voters.
There are in the United States between three and four million women
engaged in wage-earning occupations outside of domestic service. Would
this be possible had they been obliged to have the duly recorded
permission of a majority of all the men over twenty-one years old? If
the question were submitted to the votes of these men to-day whether
women should be allowed to continue in these employments and enter any
and all others, would it be carried in the affirmative in a single
State?
And yet this prejudiced, conservative and in a degree ignorant and
vicious electorate possesses absolutely the power to withhold the
suffrage from women. A large part of it is composed of foreign-born
men, bringing from the Old World the most primitive ideas of the
degraded position which properly belongs to woman. Another part is
addicted to habits with which it never would give women the chance to
interfere. Boys of twenty-one form another portion, fully imbued with
a belief in woman's inferiority which only experience can eradicate.
Men of the so-called working classes vote against it because they fear
to add to the power of the so-called aristocracy. The latter oppose it
because they think the suffrage already has been too widely extended
and ought to be curtailed instead of expanded. The old fogies cast a
negative ballot because they believe woman ought to be kept in her
"sphere," and the strictly orthodox because it is not authorized by
the Scriptures. A large body who are "almost persuaded," but have some
lingering doubts as to the "expediency," satisfy their consciences for
voting "no" by saying that the women of their family and acquaintance
do not want it. Thus is the most valuable of human rights--the right
of individual representation--made the football of Legislatures, the
shuttlecock of voters, kicked and tossed like the veriest plaything in
utter disregard of the vital fact that it is the one principle above
all others on which the Government is founded.
Nevertheless there is abundant reason for belief that, in the face of
all the forces which are arrayed against it, this measure could be
carried in almost any State where the women themselves were a unit or
even very largely in the majority in favor of it. In the indifference,
the inertia, the apathy of women lies the greatest obstacle to their
enfranchisement. Investigation in States where a suffrage amendment
has been voted on has shown that practically every election precinct
where a thorough canvass was made and every voter personally
interviewed by the women who resided in it, was carried in favor. Some
men of course can not be moved, but many who never have given the
subject any thought can be set to thinking; while there is in the
average man a latent sense of justice which responds to the persuasion
of a woman who comes in person and says, "I ask you to grant me the
same rights which you yourself enjoy; I am your neighbor; I pay taxes
just as you do; our interests are identical; give me the same power to
protect mine which you possess to protect yours." A man would have to
be thoroughly hardened to vote "no" after such an appeal, but if he
were let alone he could do so without any qualms. The same situation
obtains in the family and in social life. The average man would not
vote against granting women the franchise if all those of his own
family and the circle of his intimate friends brought a strong
pressure to bear upon him in its favor. The measure could be carried
against all opposition if every clergyman in every community would
urge the women of his congregation to work for it, assuring them of
the sanction of the church and the blessing of God, and showing them
how vastly it would increase their power for good.
Every privilege which has been granted women has tended to develop
them, until their influence is incomparably stronger at the present
time than ever before. Their great organizations are a power in every
town and city. If these throughout a State would unite in a determined
effort to secure the franchise, bringing to bear upon legislators the
demands of thousands of women, high and low, rich and poor, of all
classes and conditions, they would be compelled to yield; and the same
amount of influence would carry the amendment with the voters. But the
petitioners for the suffrage are in the minority. There are many
obvious reasons for this, and one of them, paradoxical as it may seem,
is because so much already has been gained. Woman in general now finds
her needs very well supplied. If she wants to work she has all
occupations to choose from. If she desires an education the schools
and colleges are freely opened to her. If she wishes to address the
public by pen or voice the people hear her gladly. The laws have been
largely modified in her favor, and where they might press they are
seldom enforced. She may accumulate and control property; she may set
up her own domestic establishment and go and come at will. If the
workingwoman finds herself at a disadvantage she has not time and
often not ability to seek the cause until she traces it to
disfranchisement, and if she should do so she is too helpless to make
a contest against it. Those women who "have dwelt, since they were
born, in well-feathered nests and have never needed do anything but
open their soft beaks for the choicest little grubs to be dropped into
them," can not be expected to feel or see any necessity for the
ballot. Nor will the woman half way between, absorbed in her church,
her clubs, her charities and her household, make the philosophical
study necessary to show that she could do larger and more effective
work for all of these if she possessed the great power which lies in
the suffrage. Even women of much wealth who are not idle,
self-centered and indifferent to the needs of humanity, but are giving
munificently for religious, educational and philanthropic purposes,
have not been aroused in any large number to the necessity of the
suffrage, for reasons which are evident.
Reforms of every kind are inaugurated and carried forward by a
minority, and there is no reason why this one should prove an
exception. In not an instance has a majority of any class of men
demanded the franchise, and there is no precedent for expecting the
majority of women to do so. It will have to be gained for them by the
foresight, the courage and the toil of the few, just as all other
privileges have been, and they will enter into possession with the
same eagerness and unanimity as has marked their acceptance of the
others.
With this mass of prejudice, selfishness and inertia to overcome is
there any hope of future success? Yes, there is a hope which amounts
to a certainty. Nothing could be more logical than a belief that where
one hundred privileges have been opposed and then ninety-nine of them
granted, the remaining one will ultimately follow. While women still
suffer countless minor disadvantages, the fundamental rights have
largely been secured except the suffrage. This, as has been pointed
out, is most difficult to obtain because it is intrenched in
constitutional law and because it represents a more radical revolution
than all the others combined. The softening of the bitter opposition
of the early days through the general spirit of progress has been
somewhat counteracted by a modern skepticism as to the supreme merit
of a democratic government and a general disgust with the prevalent
political corruption. This will continue to react strongly against any
further extension of the suffrage until men can be made to see that a
real democracy has not as yet existed, but that the dangerous
experiment has been made of enfranchising the vast proportion of
crime, intemperance, immorality and dishonesty, and barring absolutely
from the suffrage the great proportion of temperance, morality,
religion and conscientiousness; that, in other words, the worst
elements have been put into the ballot-box and the best elements kept
out. This fatal mistake is even now beginning to dawn upon the minds
of those who have cherished an ideal of the grandeur of a republic,
and they dimly see that in woman lies the highest promise of its
fulfilment. Those who fear the foreign vote will learn eventually that
there are more American-born women in the United States than
foreign-born men and women; and those who dread the ignorant vote will
study the statistics and see that the percentage of illiteracy is much
smaller among women than among men.
The consistent tendency since the right to individual representation
was established by the Revolutionary War has been to extend this
right, until now every man in the United States is enfranchised. While
a few, usually those who are too exclusive to vote themselves, insist
that this is detrimental to the electorate, the vast majority hold
that in numbers there is the safety of its being more difficult to
purchase or mislead; that even the ignorant may vote more honestly
than the educated; that more knowledge and judgment can be added
through ten million electors than through five; and also that by this
universal male suffrage it is made impossible for one class of men to
legislate against another class, and thus all excuse for anarchy or a
resort to force is removed. Added to these advantages is the
developing influence of the ballot upon the individual himself, which
renders him more intelligent and gives him a broader conception of
justice and liberty. All of these conditions must lead eventually to
the enfranchising of the only remaining part of the citizenship
without this means of protection and development.
The gradual movement in this direction in the United States is seen in
the partial extension of the franchise which has taken place during
the past thirty-three years, or within one generation. During this
time over one-half of them have conferred School Suffrage on women;
one has granted Municipal Suffrage; four a vote on questions of
taxation; three have recognized them in local matters, and a number of
cities have given such privileges as were possible by charter. Since
1890 four States, by a majority vote of the electors, have
enfranchised 200,000 women by incorporating the complete suffrage in
their constitutions, from which it never can be removed except by a
vote of women themselves. During all these years there have been but
two retrogressive steps--the disfranchising of the women of Washington
Territory in 1888 by an unconstitutional decision of the Supreme
Court, dictated by the disreputable elements then in control; and the
taking away of the School Suffrage from all women of the second-class
cities in Kentucky by its Legislature of 1902 for the purpose of
eliminating the vote of colored women. In every other Legislature a
bill to repeal any limited franchise which has been extended has been
overwhelmingly voted down.
Another favorable sign is the action taken by Legislatures on bills
for the full enfranchisement of women. Formerly they were treated with
contempt and ridicule and either thrown out summarily or discussed in
language which the descendants of the honorable gentlemen who used it
will regret to read. Now such bills are treated with comparative
courtesy; a discussion is avoided wherever possible, members not
wishing to go on record, but if forced it is conducted in a respectful
manner; and, while usually rejected, the opposing majority is small,
in many instances only just large enough to secure defeat, and
frequently members have to change their votes to the negative as they
find the measure is about to be carried. Several instances have
occurred in the last year or two where the bill passed but during the
night the party whip was applied with such force that the affirmative
was compelled to reconsider its action the next day. There is little
doubt that even now if members were free to vote their convictions a
bill could be carried in many Legislatures.
A most encouraging sign is the attitude of the Press. Although the
country papers occasionally refer to the suffrage advocates as hyenas,
cats, crowing hens, bold wantons, unsexed females and dangerous
home-wreckers--expressions which were common a generation ago--these
are no longer found in metropolitan and influential newspapers. Scores
of both city and country papers openly advocate the measure and scores
of others would do so if they were not under the same control as the
Legislatures. Ten years ago it was almost impossible to secure space
in any paper for woman suffrage arguments. To-day several of the
largest in the country maintain regular departments for this purpose,
while the report of the press chairman of the National Association for
1901 stated that during the past eight months 175,000 articles on the
subject had been sent to the press and a careful investigation showed
that three-fourths of them had been published. In addition different
papers had used 150 special articles, while the page of plate matter
furnished every six weeks was extensively taken. New York reported 400
papers accepting suffrage matter regularly; Pennsylvania, 368; Iowa,
253; Illinois, 161; Massachusetts, 107, and other States in varying
numbers. Since this question is very largely one of educating the
people, the opening of the Press to its arguments is probably the most
important advantage which has been gained.
The progress of public sentiment is strikingly illustrated in a
comparison of the votes in those States which have twice submitted an
amendment to their constitution that would give the suffrage to women.
In Kansas such an amendment in 1867 received 9,070 ayes, 19,857 noes;
in 1894, 95,302 ayes, 130,139 noes. The second time it was indorsed by
the Populists and not by the Republicans, therefore the latter, who in
that State are really favorable to the measure, largely voted against
it in order that the Populists might not strengthen their party by
appearing to carry it, and yet the percentage of opposition was
considerably decreased. In Colorado in 1877 the vote stood 6,612 ayes,
14,055 noes; in 1893 the amendment was carried by 35,698 ayes, 29,461
noes--a majority of 6,237. Oregon in 1884 gave 11,223 ayes, 28,176
noes; in 1900, 26,265 ayes, 28,402 noes--an increase of 226 opponents
and 15,042 advocates. The vote in Washington in 1889 was 16,527 ayes,
35,917 noes; in 1898, 20,171 ayes, 30,497 noes--the opposing majority
reduced from 19,396 to 10,326, or almost one-half.
One is logically entitled to believe from these figures that the
question will be carried in each of those States the next time it is
voted on. It must be remembered that women go into all these campaigns
with no political influence and practically no money, not enough to
employ workers and speakers to make an approach to a thorough
organization and canvass of the State; totally without the aid of
party machinery; with no platform on which to present their cause
except such as is granted by courtesy; and with no advocacy of it by
the speakers on the platforms of the various parties. The increased
majorities indicate solely that men are emerging from the bondage of
tradition, prejudice and creed, and that when they can escape from the
bondage of politics they will grant justice to women.
The very fact that women themselves are arousing from their inertia to
the extent of organizing in opposition to what they term "the danger
of having the ballot thrust upon them" shows life. While their
enrollment is infinitesimal it has set women to thinking, and a number
who have signed the declaration that they do not want the franchise,
have for the first time been compelled to give the matter
consideration and have decided that they do want it. The facts also
that within a few years the membership of the National Suffrage
Association has doubled; that auxiliaries have been formed in every
State and Territory; that permanent headquarters have been established
in New York; and that the revenues (almost wholly the contributions of
women) have risen from the $2,000 or $3,000 per annum, which it was
barely possible to secure half-a-dozen years ago, to $10,345 in 1899,
$22,522 in 1900 (including receipts from Bazar), $18,290 in
1901--these facts are indisputable evidence of the growth of the
sentiment among women. In this line of progress must be placed also
the thousands of other organizations containing millions of women,
which, although not including the suffrage among their objects, are
engaged in efforts for better laws, civic improvements and a general
advance in conditions that inevitably will bring them to realize the
immense disadvantage of belonging to a class without political
influence.
Nothing could be more illogical than the belief that a republic would
confer every gift upon woman except the choicest and then forever
withhold this; or that women would be content to possess all others
and not eventually demand the one most valuable. The increasing number
who are attending political conventions and crowding mass meetings
until they threaten to leave no room for voters, are unmistakable
proof that eventually women themselves and men also will see the utter
absurdity of their disfranchised condition. The ancient objections
which were urged so forcibly a generation or two ago have lost their
force and must soon be retired from service. The charge of mental
incapacity is totally refuted by the statistics of 1900 showing the
percentage of girls in the High Schools to be 58.36 and of boys,
41.64; the number of girl graduates, 39,162; boys, 22,575; 70 per
cent. of the public school teachers women; 40,000 women college
graduates scattered throughout the country and 30,000 now in the
universities, with the percentage of their increase in women students
three times as great as that of men, and 431,153 women practicing in
the various professions.
The charge of business incompetency is disproved by the 503,574 women
who are engaged in trade and transportation, the 980,025 in
agriculture and the 1,315,890 in manufacturing and mechanical
pursuits. Every community also furnishes its special examples of the
aptitude of women for business, now that they are allowed a chance to
manifest it. Statistics show further that one-tenth of the
millionaires are women and that they are large property holders in
every locality. Whether they earned or inherited their holdings, the
fact remains that they are compelled to pay taxes on billions of
dollars without any representation.
The military argument--that women must not vote because they can not
fight--is seldom used nowadays, as it is so clearly evident that it
would also disfranchise vast numbers of men; that the value of women
in the perpetuation of the Government is at least equal to that of the
men who defend it; and that there is no recognition in the laws by
which the franchise is exercised of the slightest connection between a
ballot and a bullet.
The most persistent objection--that if women are allowed to enter
politics they will neglect their homes and families--is conclusively
answered in the four States where they have had political rights for a
number of years and domestic life still moves on just as in other
places. In two of the four while Territories women had exercised the
franchise from seventeen to twenty-one years, and yet a large majority
of the men voted to grant it perpetually. Women do not love their
families because compelled to do so by statute, or cling to their
homes because there is no place for them outside. This same direful
prediction was made at every advanced step, but, although the entire
status of women has been changed, and they are largely engaged in the
public work of every community, they are better and happier wives,
mothers and housekeepers because they are more intelligent and live a
broader life. But they are learning, and the world is learning, that
their housekeeping qualities should extend to the municipality and
their power of motherhood to the children of the whole nation, and
that these should be expressed through this very politics from which
they are so rigorously excluded.
The objections of the opponents have been so largely confuted that
they have for the most part been compelled to make a last defense by
declaring: "When the majority of women ask for the suffrage they may
have it." By this very concession they admit that there is no valid
reason for withholding it, and in thus arbitrarily doing so they are
denying all representation to the minority, which is wholly at
variance with republican principles. This is excused on the ground
that the franchise is not a "right" but a privilege to be granted or
not as seems best to those in power. This was the Tory argument before
the American Revolution, and, carried back to its origin, it upholds
"the divine authority of kings." The law to put in force the one and
only amendment ever added to our National Constitution to extend the
franchise was entitled, "An act to enforce the _right_ of citizens of
the United States to vote;" and the amendment itself reads, "The
_right_ of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged." (See Chap. I.)
The readers of the present volume will not find such a story of cruel
and relentless punishment inflicted upon advocates of woman suffrage
as is related in the earlier volumes of this History, but the passing
of rack and thumbscrew, of stake and fagot, does not mean the end of
persecution in the world. Those who stand for this reform to-day do
not tread a flower-strewn path. It is yet an unpopular subject, under
the ban of society and receiving scant measure of public sympathy, but
it must continue to be urged. If the assertion had been accepted as
conclusive, that a measure which after years of advocacy is still
opposed by the majority should be dropped, the greatest reforms of
history would have been abandoned. The personal character of those who
represent a cause, however, sometimes carries more weight than the
numbers, and judged by this standard none has had stronger support
than the enfranchisement of women[2].
The struggle of the Nineteenth Century was the transference of power
from one man or one class of men to all men, it has been said, and
while but one country in 1800 had a constitutional government, in 1900
fifty had some form of constitution and some degree of male
sovereignty. Must the Twentieth Century be consumed in securing for
woman that which man spent a hundred years in obtaining for himself?
The determination of those engaged in this righteous contest was thus
expressed by the president of the National Suffrage Association in her
address at the annual convention of 1902:
Before the attainment of equal rights for men and women there
will be years of struggle and disappointment. We of a younger
generation have taken up the work where our noble and consecrated
pioneers left it. We, in turn, are enlisted for life, and
generations yet unborn will take up the work where we lay it
down. So, through centuries if need be, the education will
continue, until a regenerated race of men and women who are equal
before man and God shall control the destinies of the earth.
But have we not reason to hope, in this era of rapid fulfilment--when
in all material things electricity is accomplishing in a day what
required months under the old regime--that moral progress will keep
pace? And that as much stronger as the electric power has shown itself
than the coarse and heavy forces of the stone and iron periods, so
much superior will prove the _noblesse oblige_ of the men and women of
the present, achieving in a generation what was not possible to the
narrow selfishness and ignorant prejudice of all the past ages?
A part of the magnificent plan to beautify Washington, the capital of
the nation, is a colossal statue to American Womanhood. The design
embodies a great arch of marble standing on a base in the form of an
oval and broken by sweeps of steps. On either side are large bronze
panels, bearing groups of figures. One of these will be a symbolic
design showing the spirit of the people descending to lay offerings on
woman's altar. Lofty pillars crowned by figures representing Victory,
are to be placed at the approaches. Surmounting the arch will be the
chief group of the composition, symbolizing Woman Glorified. She is
rising from her throne to greet War and Peace, Literature and Art,
Science and Industry, who approach to lay homage at her feet. Inside
the arch is a memorial hall for recording the achievements of women.
How soon this symbol shall become reality and woman stand forth in all
the glory of freedom to reach her highest stature, depends upon the
use she makes of the opportunities already hers and the fraternal
assistance she receives from man. Fearless of criticism, courageous in
faith, let each take for a guide these inspiring words which it has
been said the Puritan of old would utter if he could speak: "I was a
radical in my day; be thou the same in thine! I turned my back upon
the old tyrannies and heresies and struck for the new liberties and
beliefs; my liberty and my belief are doubtless already tyranny and
heresy to thine age; strike thou for the new!"
FOOTNOTES:
[2] For partial list, see Appendix--Eminent Advocates of Woman
Suffrage.
ILLUSTRATIONS
ANTHONY, SUSAN B. _Frontispiece_
ANTHONY, MARY S. 848
AVERY, RACHEL FOSTER 270
AVERY, SUSAN LOOK 678
BLACKWELL, ALICE STONE 270
BLANKENBURG, LUCRETIA L. 750
CATT, CARRIE CHAPMAN 388
CHAPMAN, MARIANA W. 848
CLAY, LAURA 270
COGGESHALL, MARY J. 948
EATON, DR. CORA SMITH 518
GORDON, KATE M. 678
GREENLEAF, JEAN BROOKS 848
GREGG, LAURA A. 518
HALL, FLORENCE HOWE 750
HARPER, IDA HUSTED 1042
HATCH, LAVINA A. 750
HAYWARD, MARY SMITH 948
HOWARD, EMMA SHAFTER 518
HOWLAND, EMILY 848
JENKINS, HELEN PHILLEO 678
JOHNS, LAURA M. 948
MCCULLOCH, CATHARINE WAUGH 270
MEREDITH, ELLIS 518
MILLS, HARRIET MAY 750
NELSON, JULIA B. 948
OSBORNE, ELIZABETH WRIGHT 848
SHAW, REV. ANNA HOWARD 128
SOUTHWORTH, LOUISA 678
SPENCER, REV. ANNA GARLIN 750
STANTON, ELIZABETH CADY 188
SWIFT, MARY WOOD 518
THOMAS, MARY BENTLEY 678
UPTON, HARRIET TAYLOR 270
WELLS, EMMELINE B. 948
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
List of Illustrations XXXIV
INTRODUCTION.
REVIEW OF THE SITUATION xiii-xxxiii
Pioneers break the ground -- All their demands now practically
conceded except the Franchise -- Why is this still refused? --
All other rights depend on Statute Law, suffrage on change of
Constitution -- No other nation thus fettered -- Further almost
insurmountable obstacles -- Experience in many States -- Either
dominant party would enfranchise women if it were sure of their
votes -- Liquor interests and political "machines" allied in
opposition -- They control the situation -- Figures of votes on
Amendments -- Majority of people born opponents of all
innovations -- Character of electorate on which women must depend
-- Indifference of women themselves -- Reaction against a
democratic government -- Facts showing steady progress of Woman
Suffrage -- All signs favorable -- Women in education and
business -- Old objections dying out -- Personal character of
advocates -- Persecution not obsolete but the enfranchisement of
women inevitable.
CHAPTER I.
WOMAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE 1-13
Early State constitutions provided against Woman Suffrage --
First demand for it -- Women after the Civil War -- "Male" first
used in National Constitution -- Fourteenth Amendment -- Endeavor
to make it include women -- They attempt to vote -- Susan B.
Anthony's trial -- Case of Virginia L. Minor -- Supreme Court
decisions -- Suffrage as a right -- Arguments for the Federal
Franchise -- National Association decides to try only for new
Amendment -- Hearings before Congressional Committees -- Reports
of these committees -- Debate in Congress.