The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 25

After trying in vain for recognition as a political factor from the Republican and Greenback nominating conventions the delegates went to Cincinnati.[65]

Committees were at once appointed to visit the different delegations. Women were better treated by the Democrats at Cincinnati than by the Republicans at Chicago. A committee-room in Music Hall was at once placed at their disposal, placards pointing to their headquarters were printed by the local committee at its own expense, and sixteen seats given to the ladies upon the floor of the house, just back of the regular delegates. A hearing[66]

before the platform committee was granted with no limit as to time.

At the close a delegate approached the table, saying, "I favor giving woman a plank," "So do I," replied Mr. Watterson, chairman of the committee. Many delegates in conversation, favored the recognition of woman's political rights, and a large number of the platform committee favored the introduction of the following plank:

That the Democratic party, recognizing the rapid growth of the woman suffrage question, suggests a consideration of this important subject by the people in antic.i.p.ation of the time, near at hand, when it must become a political issue.

But although the platform committee sat until 2 A.M., no such result was reached, in consequence, it was said, of the objection of the extreme Southern element which feared the political recognition of negro women of the South.

The delegations from Maine, Kansas and New York were favorable, and offered the a.s.sociation the use of their committee-rooms at the Burnett House and the Grand Hotel whenever desired. Mayor Prince of Boston not only offered a committee-room but secured seats for the delegates on the floor of the house. Mr. Henry Watterson, of the Louisville _Courier-Journal_, as chairman of the Platform Committee, extended every courtesy within his power. Mayor Harrison of Chicago did his best to secure to the delegates a hearing before the convention. He offered to escort Miss Anthony to the platform that she might at least present the address. "You may be prevented," suggested one. "I'd like to see them do it," he replied. "Have I not just brought about a reconciliation between Tammany and the rest of New York?" Taking Miss Anthony upon his arm and telling her not to flinch, he made his way to the platform, when the chairman, Hon. Wade Hampton of South Carolina, politely offered her a seat, and ordered the clerk to read the address:

_To the Democratic Party in Nominating Convention a.s.sembled, Cincinnati, June 22, 1880:_

On behalf of the women of the country we appear before you, asking the recognition of woman's political rights as one-half the people. We ask no special privileges, no special legislation.

We simply ask that you live up to the principles enunciated by the Democratic party from the time of Jefferson. By what principle of democracy do men a.s.sume to legislate for women?

Women are part of the people; your very name signifies government by the people. When you deny political rights to women you are false to your own principles.

The Declaration of Independence recognized human rights as its basis. Const.i.tutions should also be general in character. But in opposition to this principle the party in power for the last twenty years has perverted the Const.i.tution of the United States by the introduction of the word "male" three times, thereby limiting the application of its guarantees to a special cla.s.s. It should be your pride and your duty to restore the const.i.tution to its original basis by the adoption of a sixteenth amendment, securing to women the right of suffrage; and thus establish the equality of all United States citizens before the law.

Not for the first time do we make of you these demands. At your nominating convention in New York, in 1868, Susan B. Anthony appeared before you, asking recognition of woman's inherent natural rights. At your convention of 1872, in Baltimore, Isabella Beecher Hooker and Susan B. Anthony made a similar appeal. In 1876, at St. Louis, Phoebe W. Couzins and Virginia L.

Minor presented our claims. Now, in 1880, our delegates are present here from the Middle States, from the West and from the South. The women of the South are rapidly uniting in their demand for political recognition, as they have been the most deeply humiliated by a recognition of the political rights of their former slaves.

To secure to 20,000,000 of women the rights of citizens.h.i.+p is to base your party on the eternal principles of justice; it is to make yourselves the party of the future; it is to do away with a more extended slavery than that of 4,000,000 of blacks; it is to secure political freedom to half the nation; it is to establish on this continent the democratic theory of the equal rights of the people.

In furtherance of this demand we ask you to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, Believing in the self-evident truth that all persons are created with certain inalienable rights, and that for the protection of these rights governments are inst.i.tuted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; therefore,

_Resolved_, That the Democratic party pledges itself to use all its powers to secure to the women of the nation protection in the exercise of their right of suffrage.

On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation.

MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

That the women however, in the campaign of 1880, received the best treatment at the hands of the National Prohibition party is shown by the following invitation received at the Bloomington convention:

_To the National Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation of the United States:_

The woman suffragists are respectfully invited to meet with and partic.i.p.ate in the proceedings of the National Prohibition Convention to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, June, 1880.

JAMES BLACK, _Chairman of National Committee._

Per J. W. HAGGARD.

A letter was received from Mr. Black urging the acceptance of the invitation. Accordingly Miss Phoebe Couzins was sent as a delegate from the a.s.sociation. The Prohibition party in its eleventh plank said:

We also demand that women having privileges as citizens in other respects, shall be clothed with the ballot for their own protection, and as a rightful means for a proper settlement of the liquor question.

After attending all these nominating conventions, some of the delegates[67] went to Wisconsin where the State and National a.s.sociations held a joint convention, in the Opera House at Milwaukee, June 4, 5. Madam Anneke gave the address of welcome.[68]

Fresh from the exciting scenes of the presidential conventions, the speakers were unusually earnest and aggressive. The resolutions discussed at the Indianapolis convention were considered and adopted. Carl Doerflinger read a greeting in behalf of the German Radicals of the city. Letters were read from prominent persons, expressing their interest in the movement.[69] Dr. Laura Ross Wolcott made all the arrangements and contributed largely to the expenses of the convention. The roll of delegates shows that the State, at least, was well represented.[70]

Thus through the terrible heat of June this band of earnest women held successive conventions in Bloomington, Ill., Grand Rapids, Mich., Lafayette and Terre Haute, Ind. They were most hospitably entertained, and immense audiences greeted them at every point.

Mrs. Cordelia Briggs took the entire responsibility of the social and financial interests of the convention at Grand Rapids, which continued for three days with increasing enthusiasm to the close.

Mrs. Helen M. Gougar made the arrangements for Lafayette which were in every way successful.

After the holding of these conventions, delegations from the National a.s.sociation called on the nominees of the two great parties to ascertain their opinions and proposed action, if any, on the question of woman suffrage. Mrs. Blake, and other ladies representing the New York city society, called on General Hanc.o.c.k at his residence and were most courteously received. In the course of a long conversation in which it was evident that he had given some thought to the question, he said he would not veto a District of Columbia Woman Suffrage bill, provided such a bill should pa.s.s congress, thereby putting himself upon better record than Horace Greely the year of his candidacy, who not only expressed himself as opposed to woman suffrage, but also declared that, if elected, he would veto such a bill provided it pa.s.sed congress.

Miss Anthony visited James A. Garfield at his home in Mentor, Ohio.

He was very cordial, and listened with respect to her presentation of the question. Although from time to time in congress he had uniformly voted with our friends, yet he expressed serious doubts as to the wisdom of pressing this measure during the pending presidential campaign.

As it was deemed desirable to get some expression on paper from the candidates the following letter, written on official paper, was addressed to the Republican and Democratic nominees:

ROCHESTER, N. Y., August 17, 1880.

Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD: _Dear Sir_: As vice-president-at-large of the National Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation, I am instructed to ask you, if, in the event of your election, you, as President of the United States, would recommend to congress, in your message to that body, the submission to the several legislatures of a sixteenth amendment to the national const.i.tution, prohibiting the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of United States citizens on account of s.e.x.

What we wish to ascertain is whether you, as president, would use your _official influence_ to secure to the women of the several States a _national guarantee_ of their right to a voice in the government on the same terms with men. Neither platform makes any pledge to secure political equality to women--hence we are waiting and hoping that one candidate or the other, or both, will declare favorably, and thereby make it possible for women, with self-respect, to work for the success of one or the other or both nominees. Hoping for a prompt and explicit statement, I am, sir, very respectfully yours,

SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

To this General Hanc.o.c.k vouchsafed no reply, while General Garfield responded as follows:

MENTOR, O., August 25, 1880.

Dear MISS ANTHONY: Your letter of the 17th inst. came duly to hand. I take the liberty of asking your personal advice before I answer your official letter. I a.s.sume that all the traditions and impulses of your life lead you to believe that the Republican party has been and is more nearly in the line of liberty than its antagonist the Democratic party; and I know you desire to advance the cause of woman. Now, in view of the fact that the Republican convention has not discussed your question, do you not think it would be a violation of the trust they have reposed in me, to speak, "as their nominee"--and add to the present contest an issue that they have not authorized? Again, if I answer your question on the ground of my own private opinion, I shall be compelled to say, that while I am open to the freest discussion and fairest consideration of your question, I have not yet reached the conclusion that it would be best for woman and for the country that she should have the suffrage. I may reach it; but whatever time may do to me, that fruit is not yet ripe on my tree. I ask you, therefore, for the sake of your own question, do you think it wise to pick my apples now? Please answer me in the frankness of personal friends.h.i.+p. With kind regards, I am very truly yours,

JAMES A. GARFIELD.

Miss SUSAN B. ANTHONY, Rochester, N. Y.

ROCHESTER, N. Y., September 9, 1880.

Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD: _Dear Sir_: Yours of the 25th ult. has waited all these days that I might consider and carefully reply.

_First_. The Republican party did run well for a season in the "line of liberty"; but since 1870, its congressional enactments, majority reports, Supreme Court decisions, and now its presidential platform, show a retrograde movement--not only for women, but for colored men--limiting the power of the national government in the protection of United States citizens against the injustice of the States, until what we gained by the sword is lost by political surrenders. And we need nothing but a Democratic administration to demonstrate to all Israel and the sun the fact, the sad fact, that all _is lost_ by the _Republican_ party, and not _to be lost_ by the _Democratic_ party. I mean, of course, the one vital point of national supremacy in the protection of United States citizens in the enjoyment of their right to vote, and the punishment of States or individuals thereof, for depriving citizens of the exercise of that right. The first and fatal mistake was in ceding to the States the right to "abridge or deny" the suffrage to foreign-born men in Rhode Island, and all women throughout the nation, in direct violation of the principle of national supremacy. And from that time, inch by inch, point by point has been surrendered, until it is only in _name_ that the Republican party is the party of national supremacy. Grant did not protect the negro's ballot in 1876--Hayes cannot in 1880--nor could Garfield in 1884--for the "sceptre has departed from Judah."

_Second_. For the candidate of a party to _add_ to the discussions of the contest an issue unauthorized or unnoted in its platform, when that issue was one vital to its very life, would, it seems to me, be the grandest act imaginable. And, for doing that very thing, with regard to the protection of the negroes of the South, you are to-day receiving more praise from the best men of the party, than for any and all of your utterances _inside_ the line of the platform. And I _know_, if you had in your letter of acceptance, or in your New York speech, declared yourself in favor of "perfect equality of rights for women, civil and political," you would have touched an electric spark that would have fired the heart of the women of the entire nation, and made the triumph of the Republican party more grand and glorious than any it has ever seen.

_Third_. As to picking fruit before it is ripe! Allow me to remind you that very much fruit is _never_ picked; some gets nipped in the blossom; some gets worm-eaten and falls to the ground; some rots on the trees before it ripens; some, too slow in ripening, gets bitten by the early frosts of autumn; while some rich, rare, ripe apples hang unpicked, frozen and worthless on the leafless trees of winter! Really, Mr. Garfield, if, after pa.s.sing through the war of the rebellion and sixteen years in congress;--if, after seeing, and hearing, and repeating, that _no cla.s.s_ ever got justice and equality of chances from any government except it had the power--the ballot--to clutch them for itself;--if, after all your opportunities for growth and development, you cannot yet see the truth of the great principle of individual self-government;--if you have only reached the idea of cla.s.s-government, and that, too, of the most hateful and cruel form--bounded by s.e.x--there must be some radical defect in the ethics of the party of which you are the chosen leader.

No matter which party administers the government, women will continue to get only subordinate positions and half-pay, not because of the party's or the president's lack of chivalric regard for woman, but because, in the nature of things, it is impossible for any government to protect a disfranchised cla.s.s in equality of chances. Women, to get justice, must have political freedom. But pardon this long trespa.s.s upon your time and patience, and please bear in mind that it is not for the many _good_ things the Republican party and its nominee have done in extending the area of liberty, that I criticise them, but because they have failed to place the women of the nation on the plane of political equality with men. I do not ask you to go beyond your convictions, but I do most earnestly beg you to look at this question from the stand-point of woman--alone, without father, brother, husband, son--battling for bread! It is to help the millions of these unfortunate ones that I plead for the ballot in the hands of all women. With great respect for your frank and candid talk with one of the disfranchised, I am very sincerely yours,

SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

As Mr. Garfield was the only presidential nominee of either of the great parties who deigned a reply to the National a.s.sociation, we have given his letter an honored place in our history, and desire to pay this tribute to his memory, that while not fully endorsing our claims for political equality he earnestly advocated for woman all possible advantages of education, equal rights in the trades and professions, and equal laws for the protection of her civil rights.

The Thirteenth Annual Was.h.i.+ngton Convention a.s.sembled in Lincoln Hall, January 18, 1881. The first session was devoted to memorial services in honor of Lucretia Mott. A programme[71] for the occasion was extensively circulated, and the response in character and numbers was such an audience as had seldom before crowded that hall. The s.p.a.cious auditorium was brilliant with sunlight and the gay dresses, red shawls and flowers of the ladies of the fas.h.i.+onable cla.s.ses. Mrs. Hayes with several of her guests from the White House occupied front seats. The stage was crowded with members of the a.s.sociation, Mrs. Mott's personal friends and wives of members of congress. The decorations which had seldom been surpa.s.sed in point of beauty and tastefulness of arrangement, formed a fitting setting for this notable a.s.semblage of women. The background was a ma.s.s of colors, formed by the graceful draping of national flags, here and there a streamer of old gold with heavy fringe to give variety, while in the center was a national s.h.i.+eld surmounted by two flags. On each side flags draped and festooned, falling at the front of the stage with the folds of the rich maroon curtains. Graceful ferns and foliage plants had been arranged, while on a table stood a large harp formed of beautiful red and white flowers.[72] At the other end was a stand of hot-house flowers, while in the center, resting on a background of maroon drapery, was a large crayon picture of Lucretia Mott. Above the picture a snow-white dove held in its beak sprays of smilax, trailing down on either side, and below was a sheaf of ripened wheat, typical of the life that had ended. The occasion which had brought the ladies together, the placid features of that kind and well-remembered face, had a solemnizing effect upon all, and quietly the vast audience pa.s.sed into the hall. The late-comers finding all the seats occupied stood in the rear and sat in the aisles.

Presently Miss Couzins, stepping to the front of the stage said gently, "In accordance with the custom of Mrs. Mott and the time-honored practice of the Quakers, I ask you to unite in an invocation to the Spirit." She bowed her head. The audience followed her example. For several minutes the solemn stillness of devotion pervaded the hall. When Miss Couzins had taken her seat the quartette choir of St. Augustine's church (colored) which was seated on the platform, sang sweetly an appropriate selection, after which Mrs. Stanton delivered the eulogy,[73] holding the rapt attention of her audience over an hour. At the close Frederick Dougla.s.s said: