History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 5/Appendix
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III.
THE DEATH OF MRS. STANTON.
From the address of an old and valued friend, the Rev. Moncure D. Conway of Virginia, who was many years at the head of the Ethical Culture Society of London, at the funeral of Elizabeth Cady Stanton in her home in New York City, Oct. 28, 1902.
A few touching words were spoken by the Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell. a contemporary in the early days of the movement for woman suffrage. At Woodlawn Cemetery the committal to earth was pronounced by the Rev. Phoebe A. Hanaford, another companion in the long contest.
miss anthony's last birthday letter to mrs. stanton, written a few days before her sudden death.
I shall indeed be happy to spend with you November 12, the day on which you round out your four-score and seven, over four years ahead of me. but in age as in all else I follow you closely. It is fifty-one years since first we met and we have been busy through every one of them, stirring up the world to recognize the rights of women. The older we grow the more keenly we feel the humiliation of disfranchisement and the more vividly we realize its disadvantages in every department of life and most of all in the labor market.
We little dreamed when we began this contest, optimistic with the hope and buoyancy of youth, that half a century later we would be compelled to leave the finish of the battle to another generation of women. But our hearts are filled with joy to know that they enter upon this task equipped with a college education, with business experience with the fully admitted right to speak in public-all of which were denied to women fifty years ago They have practically hut one point to gain—the suffrage: we had all These strong, courageous, capable young women will take our place and complete our work. There is an army of them where we were but a handful. Ancient prejudice has become so softened, public sentiment so liberalized and women have so thoroughly demonstrated their ability as to leave not a shadow of doubt that they will carry our cause to victory.
And we, dear, old friend, shall move on to the next sphere of existence— higher and larger, we cannot fail to believe, and one where women will not be placed in an inferior position but will be welcomed on a plane of perfect intellectual and spiritual equality.
Practically every magazine in the United States contained an article about Mrs. Stanton and her great work and there was scarcely a newspaper that did not have an editorial. An extended account, with tributes from Miss Anthony, will be found in her Life and Work, Chapter LXI.
In the Review of Reviews for December, 1902, appeared an appreciation from the writer of these volumes.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV.
declaration of principles.
The following Declaration of Principles, prepared by Mrs. Catt, Dr. Shaw, Miss Blackwell and Mrs. Harper, was adopted by the convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1904.
So long as no married woman was permitted to own property and all women were barred from the money-making occupations this discrimination did not seem so invidious; but to-day the situation is without a parallel. The women of the United States now pay taxes on real and personal estate valued at billions of dollars. In a number of individual States their holdings amount to many millions. Everywhere they are accumulating property. In hundreds of places they form one-third of the taxpayers, with the number constantly increasing, and yet they are absolutely without representation in the affairs of the nation, of the State, even of the community in which they live and pay taxes. We enter our protest against this injustice and we demand that the immortal principles established by the War of the Revolution shall be applied equally to women and men citizens.
As our new republic passed into a higher stage of development the gross inequality became apparent of giving representation to capital and denying it to labor; therefore the right of suffrage was extended to the workingman. Now we demand for the 4,000,000 wage-earning women of our country the same protection of the ballot as is possessed by the wage-earning men.
The founders took an even broader view of human rights when they declared that government could justly derive its powers only from the consent of the governed, and for 125 years this grand assertion was regarded as a corner-stone of the republic, with scarcely a recognition of the fact that one-half of the citizens were as completely governed without their consent as were the people of any absolute monarchy in existence. It was only when our government was extended over alien races in foreign countries that our people awoke to the meaning of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In response to its provisions, the Congress of the United States hastened to invest with the power of consent the men of this new territory, but committed the flagrant injustice of withholding it from the women. We demand that the ballot shall be extended to the women of our foreign possessions on the same terms as to the men. Furthermore, we demand that the women of the United States shall no longer suffer the degradation of being held not so competent to exercise the suffrage as a Filipino, a Hawaiian or a Porto Rican man.
The remaining Territories within the United States are insisting upon admission into the Union on the ground that their citizens desire "the right to select their own governing officials, choose their own judges, name those who are to make their laws and levy, collect, and disburse their taxes." These are just and commendable desires but we demand that their women shall have full recognition as citizens when these Territories are admitted and that their constitutions shall secure to women precisely the same rights as to men.
When our government was founded the rudiments of education were thought sufficient for women, since their entire time was absorbed in the multitude of household duties. Now the number of girls graduated by the high schools greatly exceeds the number of boys in every State and the percentage of women students in the colleges is vastly larger than that of men. Meantime most of the domestic industries have been taken from the home to the factory and hundreds of thousands of women have followed them there, while the more highly trained have entered the professions and other avenues of skilled labor. We demand that under this new régime, and in view of these changed conditions in which she is so important a factor woman shall have a voice and a vote in the solution of their innumerable problems.
The laws of practically every State provide that the husband shall select the place of residence for the family, and if the wife refuse to abide by his choice she forfeits her right to support and her refusal shall be regarded as desertion. We protest against the recent decision of the courts which has added to this injustice by requiring the wife also to accept for herself the citizenship preferred by her husband, thus compelling a woman born in the United States to lose her nationality if her husband choose to declare his allegiance to a foreign country.
As women form two-thirds of the church membership of the entire nation; as they constitute but one-eleventh of the convicted criminals; as they are rapidly becoming the educated class and as the salvation of our government depends upon a moral, law-abiding, educated electorate, we demand for the sake of its integrity and permanence that women be made a part of its voting
In brief, we demand that all constitutional and legal barriers shall be removed which deny to women any individual right or personal freedom which is granted to man. This we ask in the name of a democratic and a republican government, which, its constitution declares, was formed "to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty."APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII.
the anthony memorial building in rochester, n. y.
A Memorial Association was formed with an executive committee of Rochester women[2] but very little organized committee work was done. Suffragists were by this time too busy with the growing intensity of their own campaigns and said, truly enough, that Miss Anthony would much rather they would spend their time and money for the cause. However, an appeal was issued, coupon hooks were scattered among many women's organizations and individuals and the chairman of the committee addressed her personal appeal to every club and conference that would give her a hearing.
The largest single gift was from Miss Anthony's old friend Mrs. Sarah L. Willis of Rochester, $5,250. Mrs. Susan Look Avery of Louisville, Ky., gave $1,199. Of nine gifts of $1,000 each, five were from Rochester women—Miss Mary S. Anthony, Mrs. Hannah M. Byam. Mrs. Mary H. Tallowell, Miss Ada Howe Kent and Miss Frances Baker. The other $1,000 gifts were from Mrs. Emma J. Bartol, George and Mary A. Burnham of Philadelphia; John C. Haynes of Boston; Mrs. Lydia Coonley Ward of Chicago. Among many interesting gifts may be noted one from the women of The Netherlands and one from the Portia Suffrage Club of New Orleans. Women students at the college made class gifts from time to time but the fund grew slowly. After eight years it had reached $27,475. At this point the college authorities offered to complete the amount necessary for the building as planned. if the committee would turn over its money, which it gladly did. The cost was $58,763. the balance, which came to $31,288, being paid from the Co-education Fund raised by and for the women in 1900.
In the fall of 1914 the college girls took possession of the handsome gray stone building, bearing on its face, cut in stone, "Anthony Memorial." It contains a well-equipped gymnasium, a lunch room and four parlors for the social life of the students and the use of the Alumnæ Association. The possession of this building and Catherine Strong Hall, the two connected by a cloistered walk, has added greatly to the enjoyment and convenience of the women students. Miss Eddy's half-length portrait of Miss Anthony hangs over the chimney-piece in the largest parlor and these rooms furnish a homelike place for their smaller social gatherings: larger affairs, such as the alumnæ dinner, are held in the gymnasium. "Miss Anthony would certainly rejoice if she could look in on some February 19th and see the girls commemorating her birthday, as they do in some way every year," Mrs. Gannett writes in sending information for this account.
Dr. Rush Rhees, president of the university, who has sent for this volume a picture of the Memorial Building and some additional information, says: "The building is in constant use and is a great contribution to the comfort, health and pleasure of our women students."
Friends of Miss Anthony gave a scholarship for women in her name and Miss Mary S. Anthony gave the money for one in her own name. The university has seven other scholarships for women.APPENDIX TO CHAPTER X.
statement by mrs. carrie chapman catt at senate hearing in 1910
In 1790 the first naturalization law was passed by Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation citizenship had belonged to the States but since it was apparent that it must now he national, a compromise was made between the old idea of State's rights and the new idea of Federal union. Each of the original States had its representatives in the convention which drafted the Federal Constitution and by common consent it was there planned that citizenship should carry with it the right to vote, although this was to be put into the State constitutions and not into the National. These delegates, influencing their own States in the forming of their constitutions, easily brought this about and without any movement on the part of those who were to he naturalized. This common understanding in the National Constitutional Convention and the Naturalization Act of Congress in 1790 certainly enfranchised somewhere between three-fourths and four-fifths of all men in the United States at this time.
The population of the colonies at the time of the Revolution was two and a half millions and even though all men had been voters the number could not have been more than seven or eight hundred thousand. By the census of 1900 there were 21,000,000 men of voting age in the United States. The Act. therefore, of the U. S. Government virtually enfranchised millions upon millions of men. Generations then unborn have come into the right of the suffrage in this country under that Act and men of every nationality have availed themselves of its privileges to become voting citizens. Although, technically speaking, enfranchisement of the foreign-born was extended by the States, yet in reality it is obvious that the real granting of this privilege came from Congress itself. The thirteen original States retained their property qualifications after the formation of the Union and these were removed by State amendments. This extension of the suffrage was made in most cases many years ago, when the electorate was very small in numbers.
The history of the enfranchisement of the negro is well known. States attempted it by amending their constitutions but in no case was this accomplished. Congress undertook to secure it by national amendment and although this was ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the State Legislatures yet it must be remembered that all the southern States were virtually coerced into giving their consent.... The Indians were enfranchised by Acts of Congress.
The evolution of man suffrage in the United States shows that but one class received their votes by direct State action—the nonproperty holders. They found political parties and statesmen to advocate their cause and their enfranchisement was made easy by State constitutional action.
In the 120 years of our national life no class of men have been forced to organize a movement in behalf of their enfranchisement; they have offered no petition or plea or even given sign that the extension of suffrage to them would be acceptable. Yet American women, who have conducted a persistent, intelligent movement for a half-century, which has grown stronger and stronger with the years, appealing for their own enfranchisement and supported now by a petition of 400,000 citizens of the United States are told that it is unnecessary to consider their plea since all women do not want to vote!
Gentlemen, is it not manifestly unfair to demand of women a test which has never been made in the case of men in this or any other country? Is it not true that the attitude of the Government toward an unenfranchised class of men has ever been that the vote is a privilege to be extended and it is optional with the citizen whether or not he shall use it? If any proof is needed it can be found in the fact that the U. S. Government has no record whatever of the number who have been naturalized in this country. It has no record of the number of Indians who have accepted its offer of the vote as a reward for taking up land in severalty. Manifestly the Government, as represented by Congress and the State Legislatures, considers it entirely unnecessary to know whether men who have had the suffrage "thrust upon them" use it or not, but imperative that women must not only demand it in very large numbers but give guaranty that they will use it, before its extension shall be made to them.
Is it not likewise unfair to compel women to seek their enfranchisement by methods infinitely more difficult than those by means of which any man in this country has secured his right to a vote? Ordinary fair play should compel every believer in democracy and individual liberty, no matter what are his views on woman suffrage, to grant to women the easiest process of enfranchisement and that is the submission of a Federal Amendment.APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIV.
the shafroth-palmer woman suffrage amendment.
In 1914 the Congressional Committee of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, of which Mrs. Medill McCormick was chairman and Mrs. Antoinette Funk vice-chairman, caused to be introduced in Congress, with the sanction of the National Board, a Federal Amendment for woman suffrage radically different from the one for which the association had been working since 1869. It was named for its introducers in Senate and House. The merits of the proposed amendment, as stated by: Mrs. Funk, which are given in condensed form in Chapter XIV, will be found in full in the published Handbook or Minutes of the national suffrage convention of this year. Specimens of the objections made as published in the Woman's Journal are given herewith:
The amendment is, however, too indefinitely framed to be workable. No officer is named to whom the petitions should go; no officer is obligated to submit the question; no method of authenticating the petitions is prescribed and no time for voting is fixed. The United States has no facilities of its own for conducting any such elections or punishing State or county officers who may not volunteer to do the work. The Congressional Committee would better keep this amendment in committee rather than let the country know the great objection there is to it on the part of our constituency....
Mrs. M. Tascan Bennett (Conn.): The three principal objections to the new amendment appear to be as follows: It divides suffragists all over the country. The Anthony Amendment has had the support since 1869 of the annual conventions, where the members of the National Association have their one opportunity to direct its work. The Shafroth Amendment furnishes an excellent excuse to Congress for taking no action on the Anthony Amendment. It might well appear as a happy way to dispose of the whole question of woman suffrage by foisting responsibility for it back on the States where it already is.... It defeats what I consider to be the unanswerable advantage of the Anthony Amendment, whose ratification by the required three-fourths of the States will force the remaining one-fourth into line. The southern States, for whose special benefit the Shafroth Amendment appears to have been conceived, will undoubtedly be many years in accepting woman suffrage. With this new amendment ratified, they can still hold it back within their borders as long as they cling to their prejudices.
George H. Wright, M.D. (Conn.): The greatest objection is that, if passed, this amendment would throw the whole suffrage campaign into chaos. At present when we have carried one State we stop worrying about that State. The women cannot again be disfranchised except by an amendment to the State constitution, which would first have to pass a Legislature elected by the whole people. No such Legislature would dare to pass such a bill; the members who voted for it would accomplish nothing and would at once be ousted by their outraged women constituents. But under the Shafroth Amendment 8 per cent. of the voters could force a referendum on the question at any time.... Also a large part of the effort and money now used to gain new victories would be spent in defending what we had already won.
The Rev. Olympia Brown (Wis.), a pioneer suffragist: The passage of the Shafroth Amendment is spoken of several times in the explanations and arguments for it as being an "endorsement of woman suffrage by Congress." "Federal sanction," it is said, "would dignify the movement." This is another misnomer. There is no "indorsement" by Congress and no "federal sanction" about it. There is not even a hint that Congress favors woman suffrage. The amendment merely provides for the Initiative and Referendum in the States.
The Woman's Journal lately called attention to the statement twice made that "the effect of the amendment, if ratified, would be the same as if every State in the Union had passed a suffrage amendment." This is a most singular assertion. If every State adopted a suffrage amendment our work would be done. Again: "The passage of this resolution would have the same effect over the United States as if any other suffrage amendment had passed." Surely anyone can see that if the Anthony Amendment had been passed by Congress the effect would be entirely different from that produced by the passage of one merely giving the Initiative and Referendum to the States. And again: "If ratified, this amendment would have the same effect in every State as if a suffrage amendment had already passed its Legislature." Even this-is untrue. If any Legislature had submitted a suffrage amendment, the subject would at once go to the men to be voted on but by this method there must be a petition signed by 8 per cent. of the voters....
One thing, however, seems to be ignored bv all. When once an amendment to the Federal Constitution is passed and ratified bv three-fourths of the Legislatures it hecomes a part of the Constitution and is fixed for all time. No amendment has ever vet heen repealed but it would be difficult. if not impossible, to secure another amendment on the same subject. especially one providing for a course of action entirely different from the former.
Therefore, this Shafroth Amendment, if passed. will place an impassable barrier to future Congressional action in behalf of woman suffrage. It simply refers the matter to the States. As a reason for passing it, it is claimed that we cannot secure the submission of the original amendment. Perhaps not today or during this session of Congress; possibly not during this administration, but with the wonderful progress of our cause, the spread of the recognition of the rights of women and the "new doctrine of freedom." the demand for it will be overwhelming and it will he gained at no distant day.
Mrs. Ida Husted Harper. historian of the suffrage movement: In behalf of many loyal and experienced suffragists I wish to enter two strong protests— one against the resolution which has been presented in the U. S. Senate by Senator Shafroth of Colorado, by request of Mrs. Medill McCormick and Mrs. Antoinette Funk; the other against their statement made to Congress that thev speak for the 642,000 members of the National American Suffrage Association in offering this resolution.
The Congressional Committee, of which they are chairman and vice-chairman, was appointed, according to the understanding of the convention which met in Washington last fall, to work for the submission by Congress of the Federal Amendment for which the association has stood sponsor forty-five years. It was organized in 1869 for the express purpose of securing this amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not he denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." No other ever has been considered by the association.
When this committee opened its headquarters in Washington the National Board asked contributions for its support through the Woman's Journal, saying: "The speedy submission of this Federal Amendment is of vital concern to every suffragist." Later it announced: "The Washington office will be occupied largely with the political end of the Federal Amendment campaign, while a Chicago office will specialize in the work of organizing the congressional districts of the United States in cooperation with the various State associations." All this, of course, was for the old, original amendment. No experienced suffragist expected it to receive the necessary two-thirds vote this session, but, as it had been reported favorably to the Senate, the desire was to have it brought to a discussion; to secure as large a vote as possible and to ascertain which members were friends and which were enemies. In spite of most unfavorable conditions this was accomplished and the amendment received a majority. There were no more negative votes than when it was acted upon in 1887 by the Senate and over twice as many favorable votes.
The opposition was based almost entirely on the doctrine of State's rights, as was to be expected; but three Southern Senators voted in the affirmative. Before another session of Congress several more States are certain to be carried for woman suffrage, thus insuring more votes for this Federal Amendment. The defeat of suffrage bills in a number of Legislatures in the South is converting the women of that section to the necessity of action by Congress. Just at the most favorable moment in the entire history of this amendment, the committee having it in charge suddenly throws it on the dust heap; has another introduced of a radically different character, and announces to the public that this is done with the sanction of the National Board and that it represents the sentiment of the 642,000 members of the National American Association!.... In behalf of countless members of this association, I protest against this high-handed action. IL insist that the National Board exceeded its prerogatives when it sanctioned so radical and complete a change in the time-honored policy of the association without first bringing it before a national convention and giving the delegates a chance to pass upon it. 'he proposed amendment seems undesirable from every point of view....These and all protests were answered by Miss Alice Stone Blackwell, editor of the Woman's Journal, generally recognized as high authority by the suffragists of the country. Throughout the months of controversy she kept up a vigorous defense and advocacy of the Shafroth Amendment, saying: "The old amendment has not been dropped and many of us believe that the new amendment will pave the way for the passage of the old one. Most of the suffragists are much attached to the old nation-wide amendment. If any proposal should be made at the next national convention to drop it the proposal could hardly carry, or, if it did, the resulting dissatisfaction would greatly weaken the National Association, but at present nothing of the sort is proposed." She did, however, say in mild criticism:
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XV.
from address of dr. anna howard shaw when resigning the presidency of the national american woman suffrage association, dec. 15, 1915.
After a brief sketch of the condition of the world after a year and a half of the war in Europe, the address continued:
The United States is looked upon as being the most powerful neutral nation, which with its high human ideal is the best equipped to present its good offices in mediation between the warring nations of the East, but is this true? What better preparation could it make than by removing from within its own borders the very cause which led to the present barbarous conditions across the sea?
.... How can the United States, in any spirit of a truly great nation, offer its services as mediator when it is following the same line of action towards its own people? How can it plead for justice in the East when it denies this to its own women?' How can it claim that written agreements between nations are binding when it violates the fundamental principles of its own National Constitution which declare that "the right of the citizen to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State," and for forty-five years Congress has turned a deaf ear to the appeal of our own citizens for protection under this law? Is it true that the United States Constitution too is but a "scrap of paper" to be repudiated at will? If, as a mediator of justice, we hold out our hands to lift other nations from the abyss into which injustice has plunged them, they must be clean hands. Our words must ring true....
Many appeals will be made to our association to abandon its one purpose of securing votes for women and turn its attention and organized machinery to the real or imaginary dangers which beset us as a nation, but let us never for a moment forget the specious promises and assurances that were given to the pioneers, who, when the Civil War took place, gave up their associated work and turned their efforts to its demand in the belief that when the war was over the country would recognize their patriotic services and the dependence of the nation upon women in war as in peace and reward them with the ballot, the crowning symbol of citizenship. But instead of recognizing their service and rewarding the loyal women, the cry went forth: "This is the negroes' hour. Let the women wait"—and they are still waiting. As they wait they are not blind to the fact that this nation did what no other nation has ever done, when it voluntarily made its former slaves the sovereign rulers of its loyal and patriotic women.
The greatest service suffragists can render their country and through it the whole world at this time, is to teach it that there is no sex in love of individual liberty and to stand without faltering by their demand for justice and equality of political rights for men and women.Dr. Shaw impressed upon the workers, especially the younger ones, not to be discouraged at what seemed slow progress and said:
address of mrs. carrie chapman catt at senate hearing, dec. 15, 1915.
Since our last appeal was made to your committee a vote has been taken in four Eastern States upon the question of amending their constitutions for woman suffrage. The inaction of Congress in not submitting a Federal amendment naturally leads us to infer that members believe the proper method by which women may secure the vote is through the referendum. We found in those four States what has always been true whenever any class of people have asked for any form of liberty and was best described by Macaulay when he said: "If a people are turbulent they are unfit for liberty; if they are quiet, they do not want it." We met a curious dilemma. On the one hand a great many men voted in the negative because women in Great Britain had made too emphatic a demand for the vote. Since they made that demand it is reported that 10,000,000 men have been killed, wounded or are missing through militant action, but all of that is held as naught compared with the burning of a few vacant buildings. Evidently the logic that these American men followed was: Since some turbulent women in another land are unfit to vote, no American woman shall vote. There was no reasoning that could change the attitude of those men. On the other hand the great majority of the men who voted against us, as well as the great majority of the members of Legislatures and Congress who oppose this movement, hold that women have given no signal that they want the vote. Between the horns of this amazing dilemma the Federal amendment and State suffrage seem to be caught fast.
So those of us who want to learn how to obtain the vote have naturally asked ourselves over and over again what kind of a demand can be made. We get nothing by "watchful waiting" and if we are turbulent we are pronounced unfit to vote. We turned to history to learn what kind of a demand the men of our own country made and determined to do what they had done. The census of 1910 reported 27,000,000 males over 21. Of these 9,500,000 are direct descendants of the population of 1800; 2,458,873 are negroes; 15,040,278 are aliens, naturalized or descendants of naturalized citizens since 1800. The last two classes compose two-thirds of the male population over 21. The enfranchisement of negro men is such recent history that it is unnecessary to repeat here that they made no demand for the vote. The naturalization laws give citizenship to any man who chooses to make a residence of this country for five years and automatically every man who is a citizen becomes a voter in the State of his residence. In the 115 years since 1800 not one single foreigner has ever been asked whether he wanted the vote or whether he was fit for it—it has literally been thrust upon him. Two-thirds of our men of voting age today have not only made no demand for the vote but they have never been asked to give any evidence of capacity to use it intelligently.
We turned again to history to see how the men who lived in this country in 1800 got their votes. At that time 8 per cent. of the total population were voters in New York as compared with 25 per cent. now. There was a struggle in all the colonial States to broaden the suffrage. New York seemed always to have lagged behind the others and therefore it forms a good example. It was next to the last State to remove the land qualification and it was not a leader in the extension of the suffrage to any class.
In 1740 the British Parliament disqualified the Catholics for naturalization in this country. 'hat enactment had been preceded in several of the States by their definite disfranchisement. In 1699 they were disfranchised by an Act of the Assembly of New York. Although the writers on the early franchise say that Jews were not permitted to vote anywhere in this country in 1701, as they certainly were not in England, yet occasionally they apparently did so. In New York that year there was a definite enactment disfranchising them. In 1737 the Assembly passed another disfranchising Act. Catholics and Jews were disfranchised in most States. It is interesting to learn how they became enfranchised. One would naturally suppose that together or separately they would make some great demand for political equality with Protestants but there is no record that they did. I find that the reason why our country became so liberal to them was not because there was any demand on their part and not because there was any special advocacy of their enfranchisement by statesmen. It was due to the fact that in the Revolution, Great Britain, having difficulty with the American colonies on the south side of the St. Lawrence River, did as every belligerent country does and tried to hold Canada by granting her favors. In order to make the Canadian colonies secure against revolution the British Parliament, which had previously disfranchised the Catholics and the Jews, now extended a vote to them. The American Constitution makers could not do less than Great Britain had done, and so in every one of the thirteen States they were guaranteed political equality with Protestants.
The next great movement was the elimination of the land qualification and on this we find that history is practically silent. In Connecticut and Rhode Island a small petition was presented to the Assembly asking for its removal. In New York in the constitutional convention of 1821 when some members advocated its removal others asked, “Where is the demand? Who wants to vote that has no land?” The answer was that there had been some meetings in New York in behalf of removing this qualification. No one of them had seen such a meeting but some members had heard that a few had been held in the central districts of the State. This constitutes the entire demand that has been made by the men of our country for the vote.
In contrast we may ask what have women done? Again I may say that New York is a fair example because it is the largest of the States in population and has the second city in size in the world and occupies perhaps the most important position in any land in which a suffrage referendum has been taken. Women held during the six months prior to the election in 1915, 10,300 meetings. They printed and circulated 7,500,000 leaflets or three-and-a-half for every voter. These leaflets weighed more than twenty tons. They had 770 treasuries in the State among the different groups doing suffrage work and every bookkeeper except two was a volunteer. Women by the thousands contributed to the funds of that campaign, in one group 12,000 public school teachers. On election day 6,330 women watched at the polls from 5:45 in the morning until after the vote was counted. I was on duty myself from 5:30 until midnight. There were 2,500 campaign officers in the State who gave their time without pay. The publicity features were more numerous and unique than any campaign of men or women had ever had. They culminated in a parade in New York City which was organized without any effort to secure women outside the city to participate in it, yet 20,000 marched through Fifth Avenue to give some idea of the size of their demand for the vote.
What was the result? If we take the last announcement from the board of elections the suffrage amendment received 535,000 votes—2,000 more than the total vote of the nine States where women now have suffrage through a referendum. It was not submitted in Wyoming, Utah or Illinois. Yet New York suffragists did not win because the opponents outvoted them. How did this happen? Why did not such evidence of a demand win the vote? Because the unscrupulous men of the State worked and voted against woman suffrage, aided and abetted by the weakminded and illiterate, who are permitted a vote in New York. In Rochester the male inmates of the almshouse and rescue home were taken out to vote against the amendment. Men too drunk to sign their own names voted all over the State, for drunkards may vote in New York. In many of the polling places the women watchers reported that throughout the entire day not one came to vote who did not have to be assisted; they did not know enough to cast their own vote.
Those are some of the conditions women must overcome in a referendum, One can eventually be carried even in New York but we believe we have made all the sacrifices which a just Government ought to expect of us. Even the Federal Amendment is difficult enough, with the ratification of 36 Legislatures required, but we may at least appeal to a higher class of men. We were obliged to make our campaign in twenty-four different languages.... It is too unfair and humiliating treatment of American women to compel us to appeal to the men of all nations of the earth for the vote which has been so freely and cheaply given to them. We believe we ought to have the benefit of the method provided by the Federal Constitution.APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XVII.
Headquarters Of The National American Woman Suffrage Association.
During the early years of the movement for woman suffrage the headquarters were in the home of Miss Susan B. Anthony, in Rochester, N. Y. In 1890 her strong desire to have a center for work and social features in Washington was fulfilled by the National Association's renting two large rooms in the club house of Wimodaughsis, a newly formed stock company of women for having classes and lectures on art, science, literature and domestic and political economy, with Dr. Anna Howard Shaw president. It did not prove to be permanent, however, and in two years the association had to give up the rooms and the work went back to Rochester, where much of it had continued to be done.
In October, 1895, when Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt became chairman of the Organization Committee, she opened headquarters in one room of her husband's offices in the World Building, New York City. At the same time Miss Anthony, with a gift of $1,000 from Mrs. Louisa Southworth of Cleveland, had Mrs. Rachel Foster Avery, national corresponding secretary, open headquarters in Philadelphia, with Miss Nicolas Shaw as secretary. Both acts were endorsed by the Business Committee of the association. At the next convention Mrs. Avery recommended that the Philadelphia headquarters be removed to those of New York. This was done April 1, 1897; two large rooms were rented in the World Building and all the work of the association except the treasurer's and the convention business was transacted here. For six years the national headquarters, in charge of Mrs. Catt, remained in New York. In May, 1903, they were removed to Warren, Ohio, near Cleveland, and Mrs. Harriet Taylor Upton, national treasurer, took charge of them, with Miss Elizabeth J. Hauser, executive secretary. Here they were beautifully housed, first in the parlors of an old mansion and later on the ground floor of the county court house where formerly was the public library. In 1909, partly through the contribution of Mrs. Oliver H. P. Belmont, they were returned to New York City and with the New York State Association occupied the entire seventeenth floor of a large, new office building, 505 Fifth Avenue, corner of 42nd Street. When Mrs. Catt again became president the work of the association had outgrown even these commodious headquarters and in January, 1916, the fourteenth floor, with much more space, was taken in an office building at 171 Madison Avenue, corner of 33rd Street. In March, 1917, the Leslie Commission opened its Bureau of Suffrage Education in this building and the two organizations occupied two floors with a staff of fifty persons. On May 1, 1920, their work was concentrated on one floor, as the great task of securing complete, universal suffrage for the women of the United States was almost finished.
Branch Headquarters: In January, 1914, branch headquarters were opened in the Munsey Building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington for the work of the association’s Congressional Committee. They continued there until the effort to obtain a Federal Amendment became of such magnitude as to require a great deal more room and in December, 1916, a large house was taken at 1626 Rhode Island Avenue, just off of Scott Circle [see page 632]. This was occupied by the committee, national officers, the lobbyists and other workers until July, 1919, when the amendment had been submitted by Congress.
The first headquarters in a business building in 1895 had been rented for $15 a month; the last year’s rent for the headquarters in New York and Washington was $17,500.
bequest of mrs. frank leslie.
Mrs. Frank Leslie, long at the head of the Leslie publications in New York City, died Sept. 18, 1914, leaving a will which made the following provisions:
Mrs. Leslie had previously made two wills of a similar character. The estate was appraised at $1,800,000 in stocks, bonds and real estate. There was an immense inheritance tax to be paid and harassing litigation was at once begun and continued. It was not until the winter of 1917 that the executors commenced a distribution of the funds. Mrs. Catt incorporated the Leslie Woman Suffrage Commission, which has received and expended all monies realized from the estate. They were a large factor in the legitimate expenditures for obtaining the submission of the Federal Suffrage Amendment from Congress and its ratification by 36 State Legislatures. They were also of great assistance in the campaigns of the last years to secure the amendments of State constitutions, which required organizers, speakers, printing, postage, etc. Contributions have been made to women’s struggle for the franchise in other countries.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIX.
present status of the national american woman suffrage association, organized in 1869.
Acting on the plan adopted at the last convention of the National American Association at Chicago in February, 1920, Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, president, issued a call for a meeting of the Executive Council in Hotel Statler at the time of the second annual convention of the National League of Women Voters in Cleveland, Ohio. The meeting took place at 10 a. m., April 13, 1921, Mrs. Catt in the chair. She made a report of the receipts and disbursements of the Leslie Fund, saying that as soon as the estate was finally settled she would render a detailed statement. She said there were reasons why the association should not at this time be dissolved and gave them as follows:
(1) Legal attacks on the Federal Amendment are still pending and there are attempts to secure submission of a repeal to the voters. The association must remain till no further efforts are made to invalidate the amendment.
(2) The necessity of some authority to give advice and to help our dependencies where suffrage campaigns are pending.
(3) Several bequests, delayed because estates are not settled, also require the continuation of the association.
The Chair stated that the incorporation does not expire till 1940. Conventious of elected delegates are no longer feasible and, therefore, continuation without conventions should be provided for in an amended constitution, such amendments to be confirmed by the Executive Council.
It was unanimously agreed that the association be continued and on motion of Mrs. Catharine Waugh McCulloch, attorney, of Chicago, it was voted that the Chair appoint two other members of the Council to co-operate with her in revising the constitution in acordance with the new arrangement. She appointed Mrs. McCulloch and Mrs. Nettie Rogers Shuler, the corresponding secretary of the association.
The report of the national treasurer from Jan. 1, 1920, to March 31, 1921, showed that $12,451 had been used for the expenses connected with the ratification in eleven difficult States; the headquarters had been maintained; legal fees paid; the expenses of the Chicago convention met; deficit of the National Woman Suffrage Publishing Co. paid; printing and other bills settled, and a balance of $3,534 remained in the treasury.
The General Officers had been re-elected in Chicago to serve until the end. At the present meeting the Directors, whose term of office had expired, were re-elected to serve continuously, except Mrs. Arthur L. Livermore, whose resignation was accepted and Mrs. Harriet Taylor Upton was chosen to fill the vacancy. It was voted that the League of Women Voters be asked to take the place of the National Suffrage Association as auxiliary to the International Woman Suffrage Alliance; also that the association no longer continue as auxiliary of the National Council of Women of the United States.
Brief remarks were made by delegates present and enthusiastic appreciation was expressed of the action of the Tennessee Legislature in giving the 36th ratification of the Federal Suffrage Amendment. Mrs. Catt closed the meeting with advice to the delegates to put their State records, literature, etc., into libraries for preservation and she urged the necessity of the best training for their new responsibilities, reminding them that the duty would always rest on women to conserve civilization.
The committee, consisting of Mrs. Catt, Mrs. Shuler and Mrs. McCulloch, recommended the adoption of an abridged constitution with the elimination of all the by-laws and articles of the old one which were now unnecessary. The Board could incur no financial obligations beyond the assets in their hands; they could fill vacancies caused by death or resignation as heretofore; adopt such rules for their meetings as they deemed proper and amend the constitution by a two-thirds vote. The Board should continue to consist of nine officers and eight directors, with the power to summon the Executive Council. This Council should comprise the Board and the presidents and executive members of State auxiliaries as they existed in 1920. The name of the association would be retained.
The abridged constitution was sent to every member of the Council to be voted on.
The Executive Council was called to meet at the headquarters of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in New York at 10:30 a.m., June 22, 1921. for final action on the new constitution. Mrs. Catt presided and Mrs. Lewis J. Cox, State executive member from Indiana, acted as secretary. It was voted that the following sentence he added to the objects of the association: "To remove as far as it is possible all discriminations against women on account of sex." Sixty-six of the eighty-two members of the Council having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative the constitution was declared to be legally adopted.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIX.
death of dr. anna howard shaw.
It is literally true that a nation mourned the death of Anna Howard Shaw. Having lectured from ocean to ocean for several decades she was universally known and there were few newspapers which did not contain a sympathetic editorial on her public and personal life. Telegrams were received at her home from all parts of the world and the letters were almost beyond counting. Friend and foe alike yielded to the unsurpassed charm of her personality and the rare qualities of her mind and heart.
In February, 1919, the Woman's Council of National Defense, of which Dr. Shaw had been chairman since its beginning in April, 1917, dissolved with its duties ended. For the past two years she had practically given up her platform work for woman suffrage. then at its most critical stage with the Federal Amendment pending. Now she had made a large number of speaking engagements for the spring in its behalf and had accepted the invitation of Dr. M. Carey Thomas, president of Bryn Mawr College, to he her guest on a trip to Spain afterwards. Everything was put aside when in May came an urgent request from former President Taft and President Lowell, of Harvard University, to join them in a speaking tour of fourteen States from New Hampshire to Kansas to arouse sentiment in favor of the League of Nations as a means of assuring peace forevermore. She was to speak but once a day but she could not resist the appeals in the different cities and it became four or five times a day. At Indianapolis she made speeches, gave interviews, etc., eight times. The next day at Springfield, Ill., she was stricken with pneumonia and was in the hospital two weeks. By June 12 she was able to leave for her home in Moylan, a residence suburb of Philadelphia, with her beloved friend and companion, Lucy Anthony, who had gone to her and who wrote to anxious friends: "She made the journey without even a rise of temperature, found the house all bright with sunshine and flowers and was the happiest person in the world to be at home again." She seemed to recover entirely but on June 30 had a sudden relapse and died at 7 o'clock on the evening of July 2.
dr. shaw's tribute to the american flag, given many times.
"We see in every stripe of red the blood which has been shed through the centuries by men and women who have sacrificed their lives for the idea of democracy; we see in every stripe of white the purity of the democratic ideal toward which all the world is tending, and in every star in its field of blue we see the hope of mankind that some day the democracy which that bit of bunting symbolizes shall permeate the lives of men and nations, and we love it because it enfolds our ideals of human freedom and justice."
In 1917. "It is because we love our country so much and because we are so anxious to give ourselves entirely to the great service of winning the war, that we want the freedom of American women now. We suffragists would he thrice traitors if at this time of the great struggle of the world for democracy we should fail to ask for the fundamental principles here which America is trying to help bring to other countries."
When Dr. Shaw received the Distinguished Service Medal from Secretary of War Baker she said: "I realize that in conferring upon me the Distinguished Service Medal, the President and the Secretary of War are not expressing their appreciation of what I as an individual have done but of the collective service of the women of the county. As it is impossible to decorate all women who have served equally with the Chairman of the Woman's Committee, I have been chosen, and while I appreciate the honor and am prouder to wear this decoration than to receive any other recognition save my political freedom, which is the first desire of a loyal American, I nevertheless look upon this as the beginning of the recognition by the country of the service and loyalty of women, and above all that the part women are called upon to take in times of war is recognized as equally necessary in times of peace. This departure on the part of the national government through the President and Secretary of War gives the greater promise of the time near at hand when every citizen of the United States will be esteemed a government asset because of his or her loyalty and service rather than because of sex."
Dr. Shaw was a valued member of the executive committee of the League to Enforce Peace, under whose auspices she was making the tour with former President Taft and President Lowell of Harvard University, and it sent her a transcript of her speech to revise for publication. This she did on the last Sunday of her life and the committee prepared tens of thousands of copies of it for circulation. It was entitled What the War Meant to Women and mere extracts can give little idea of its strength and beauty. After speaking of the Woman's Committee of the Council of National Defense, the Peace Treaty and President Wilson's declaration that the United States did not want any material advantage out of the war, she ended:
The war is over as far as the fighting is concerned but it is only begun as far as the life of the people is concerned. What would there be of inspiration to them to come back to their ruined homes and build up again their cities if within a few years the same thing could be repeated and homes destroyed and cities devastated, the people outraged and made slaves as they have been?
Men and women, they are looking to us as the hope of the world and whenever I gaze on our flag, whenever I look on those stars on their field of blue and those stripes of red and white, I say to myself: "I do not wonder that when that flag went over the trenches and surmounted the barriers, the people of the world took heart of hope. It was then that they began to feel they could unite with us in some sort of security for the future. And that flag means so much to me. I never look on its stars but that I see in every star the hope that must stir the peoples of the old world when they think of us and the power we have of helping to lead them up to a place where they may hope for their children and for their children's children the things that have not come to them."....
We women, the mothers of the race, have given everything, have suffered everything, have sacrificed everything and we say to you now: "The time is come when we will no longer sit quietly by and bear and rear sons to die at the will of a few men. We will not endure it. We demand either that you shall do something to prevent war or that we shall be permitted to try to do something ourselves." Could there be any cowardice, could there be any injustice, could there be any wrong, greater than for men to refuse to hear the voice of a woman expressing the will of women at the peace table of the world and then not provide a way by which the women of the future shall not be robbed of their sons as the women of the past have been?
To you men we look for support. We look for your support back of your Senators and from this day until the day when the League of Nations is accepted and ratified by the Senate of the United States, it should be the duty of every man and every woman to see that the Senators from their State know the will of the people; know that the people will that something shall be done, even though not perfect; that there shall be a beginning from which we shall construct something more perfect by and by; that the will of the people is that this League shall be accepted and that if, in the Senate of the United States, there are men so blinded by partisan desire for present advantage, so blinded by personal pique and narrowness of vision, that they cannot see the large problems which involve the nations of the world, then the people of the States must see to it that other men sit in the seats of the highest.In the beautiful Memorial issued by the Board of Directors of the National American Woman Suffrage Association were affectionate tributes from those who were officially associated with her for many years. Among the many from eminent men and women which were reproduced in the Memorial were the following: It was not my privilege to know Dr. Shaw until the later years of her life but I had the advantage then of seeing her in many lights. I saw her acting with such vigor and intelligence in the service of the Government, and, through the Government, of mankind, as to win my warmest admiration. I had already had occasion to see the extraordinary quality of her clear and effective mind and to know how powerful and persuasive an advocate she was. When the war came I saw her in action and she won my sincere admiration and homage.
President of the United States.
(President and Mrs. Wilson, who were on the way home from France, sent a wireless message of sympathy and a handsome floral tribute from the White House.)
The world is infinitely poorer by the death of so great and good a woman.
Vice-President of the United States.
Dr. Anna Howard Shaw was a member of the Executive Committee of the League to Enforce Peace. She was constant in her attendance, full of suggestion and earnest in support of the cause. It was my great pleasure to speak with her from many a platform in favor of the League and to enjoy the very great privilege of listening to her persuasive eloquence and her genial wit and humor, which she always used to enforce her arguments. She thought nothing of the sacrifice she had to make and was only intent upon the consummation of our purpose. She was a remarkable woman. I deeply regret her death. There were many avenues of great usefulness which a continuance of her life would have enabled her to pursue. Her going is a great loss to the community.
President of the League to Enforce Peace.
I desire officially to pay tribute to the passing of Dr. Shaw. Aside from her epic contribution to the cause of progressive American womanhood it is in no sense perfunctory to say that whether in war time Washington, organizing and directing the eighteen thousand units of the Woman’s Committee of National Defense. or with indomitable courage and power going up and down the country pleading great public causes relating to the war, this woman of seventy years was an inspiration to all of us. There was no one in American life who epitomized more finely Roosevelt’s philosophy that in the public arena one must to the uttermost spend and be spent. It was a magnificent and enduring trail that Dr. Shaw blazed. Everywhere her endeavors had the impersonal and unselfish touch that marks the great protagonist of new ideals. She was a gallant and stirring figure in the history of this country and leaves the government of the United States distinctly in her debt.
Director United States Council National Defense.
As a member of the Council of National Defense I wish to express my very sincere appreciation of the patriotic service that Dr. Shaw rendered during the past two years, the magnitude of which cannot he appreciated except by those intimately familiar with it. Her distinguished service medal was well earned.
Secretary of the Interior.
I hardly know how to write you about the death of our dear Anna Howard Shaw. She has been such a tower of strength to our cause everywhere and now her place knows her no more! There is one comfort in that she lived long enough to know of the triumph of your cause in the passage of the Federal Amendment. She will be sorely missed and deeply mourned, first and foremost in America and Great Britain, but really all over the world, in every country where woman's cause is a living issue.
Honorary President,
National Union of Societies for
Equal Citizenship of Great Britain.
My deepest sorrow and sympathy go out to the family of Dr. Shaw, to the National Council of Women of the United States and to the International Council and the Woman Suffrage Alliance. Her passing is indeed a great loss to the women of the whole world.
President International Council of Women.
Truly all womanhood has lost a faithful friend.
President Northeastern Federation
of Women's Clubs (colored).
Loving and appreciative tributes were sent from the officers of National and International Associations in all parts of the world.
APPENDIX FOR CHAPTER XX.
appeal of president wilson to the senate of the united states to submit the federal amendment for woman suffrage delivered in person sept. 30, 1918.
Gentlemen of the Senate: The unusual circumstances of a World War in which we stand and are judged in the view not only of our own people and our own consciences but also in the view of all nations and peoples, will, I hope, justify in your thought, as it does in mine, the message I have come to bring you.
I regard the concurrence of the Senate in the constitutional amendment proposing the extension of the suffrage to women as vitally essential to the successful prosecution of the great war of humanity in which we are engaged. I have come to urge upon you the considerations which have led me to that conclusion. It is not only my privilege, it is also my duty to apprise you of every circumstance and element involved in this momentous struggle which seems to me to affect its very processes and its outcome. It is my duty to win the war and to ask you to remove every obstacle that stands in the way of winning it.
I had assumed that the Senate would concur in the amendment, because no disputable principle is involved but only a question of the method by which the suffrage is to be now extended to women. There is and can be no party issue involved in it. Both of our great national parties are pledged, explicitly pledged, to equality of suffrage for the women of the country.
Neither party. therefore, it seems to me, can justify hesitation as to the method of obtaining it, can rightfully hesitate to substitute Federal initiative for State initiative if the early adoption of this measure is necessary to the successful prosecution of the war, and if the method of State action proposed in the party platforms of 1916 is impracticable within any reasonable length of time, if practical at all. And its adoption is, in my judgment, clearly necessary to the successful prosecution of the war and the successful realization of the objects for which the war is being fought.
That judgment I take the liberty of urging upon you with solemn earnestness for reasons which J shall state very frankly and which I shall hope will seem as conclusive to you as they seem to me.
This is a people's war and the people's thinking constitutes its atmosphere and morale, not the predilections of the drawing room or the political considerations of the caucus. If we be indeed democrats and wish to lead the world to democracy, we can ask other peoples to accept in proof of our sincerity and our ability to lead them whither they wish to be led, nothing less persuasive and convincing than our actions.
Our professions will not suffce. Verification must be forthcoming when verification is asked for. And in this case verification is asked for—asked for in this particular matter. You ask by whom? Not through diplomatic channels; not by foreign ministers: not by the intimations of parliaments. It is asked for by the anxious, expectant, suffering peoples with whom we are dealing and who are willing to put their destinies in some measure in our hands, if they are sure that we wish the same things that they do.
TI do not speak by conjecture. It is not alone that the voices of statesmen and of newspapers reach me, and that the voices of foolish and intemperate agitators do not reach me at all. Through many, many channels I have been made aware what the plain, struggling, workaday folk are thinking, upon whom the chief terror and suffering of this tragic war fall. They are looking to the great, powerful, famous democracy of the West to lead them to the new day for which they have so long waited; and they think, in their logical simplicity, that democracy means that women shall play their part in affairs alongside men and upon an equal footing with them.
If we reject measures like this, in ignorant defiance of what a new age has brought forth, of what they have seen but we have not, they will cease to believe in us; they will cease to follow or to trust us. They have seen their own governments accept this interpretation of democracy—seen old governments like that of Great Britain, which did not profess to be democratic. promise readily and as of course this justice to women, though they had before refused it; the strange revelations of this war having made many things new and plain to governments as well as to peoples.
Are we alone to refuse to learn the lesson? Are we alone to ask and take the utmost that our women can give—service and sacrifice of every kind— and still say we do not see what title that gives them to stand by our side in the guidance of the affairs of their nation and ours? We have made partners of the women in this war. Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and not to a partnership of privilege and right? This war could not have been fought, either by the other nations engaged or by America, if it had not been for the services of the women— services rendered in every sphere—not merely in the fields of efforts in which we have been accustomed to see them work but wherever men have worked and upon the very skirts and edges of the battle itself.
We shall not only be distrusted, but shall deserve to be distrusted if we do not enfranchise women with the fullest possible enfranchisement, as it is now certain that the other great free nations will enfranchise them. We cannot isolate our thought or action in such a matter from the thought of the rest of the world. We must either conform or deliberately reject what they approve and resign the leadership of liberal minds to others.
The women of America are too intelligent and too devoted to be slackers whether you give or withhold this thing that is mere justice; but I know the magic it will work in their thoughts and spirits if you give it to them. I propose it as I would propose to admit soldiers to the suffrage—the men fighting in the field of our liberties of the world—were they excluded.
The tasks of the women lie at the very heart of the war and I know how much stronger that heart will beat if you do this just thing and show our women that you trust them as much as you in fact and of necessity depend upon them.
I have said that the passage of this amendment is a vitally necessary war measure and do you need further proof? Do you stand in need of the trust of other peoples and of the trust of our own women? Is that trust an asset or is it not? I tell you plainly, as the commander-in-chief of our armies and of the gallant men in our fleets; as the present spokesman of this people in our dealings with the men and women throughout the world who are now our partners; as the responsible head of a great government which stands and is questioned day by day as to its purpose, its principles, its hope.... I tell you plainly that this measure which I urge upon you is vital to the winning of the war and to the energies alike of preparation and of battle.
And not to the winning of the war only. It is vital to the right solution of the great problems which we must settle, and settle immediately, when the war is over. We shall need in our vision of affairs, as we have never needed them before, the sympathy and insight and clear moral instinct of the women of the world. The problems of that time will strike to the roots of many things that we have hitherto questioned, and I for one believe that our safety in those questioning days, as well as our comprehension of matters that touch society to the quick, will depend upon the direct and authoritative participation of women in our counsels. We shall need their moral sense to preserve what is right and fine and worthy in our system of life as well as to discover just what it is that ought to be purified and reformed. Without their counsellings we shall be only half wise.
That is my case. This is my appeal. Many may deny its validity, if they choose, but no one can brush aside or answer the arguments upon which it is based. The executive tasks of this war rest upon me. I ask that you lighten them and place in my hands instruments, spiritual instruments, which I have daily to apologize for not being able to employ.
- ↑ See Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, page 1221 and following.
- ↑ Executive Committee: Mrs. Mary T. L. Gannett, chairman; Mrs. Georgia F. Raynsford, first vice-chairman; Mrs. Helen B. Montgomery, second; Mrs. William S. Little, third; Mrs. W. L. Howard, fourth; Mrs. Henry G. Danforth, treasurer; Miss Jeannette W. Huntington, assistant; Miss Charlotte P. Acer, corresponding secretary; Mrs. Emma B. Sweet, assistant; Mrs. Adele R. Ingersoll, recording secretary. Security Trust Co., Rochester, N. Y., Financial Agent.
A national committee of prominent women was formed.
- ↑ For the purpose of making a clear distinction between the two amendments the name of Susan B. Anthony is permitted in this one Instance for the original Federal Amendment. It is not just to the others who worked for it to give it this designation.