The National Prohibition Convention at Bloomington, Ill., officially invited the suffrage advocates to meet with them and participate in their proceedings. Phœbe Couzins was sent as a delegate, and the convention adopted the following plank: "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 the proper settlement of the liquor question." This body, it will be noticed, not only demanded the ballot for woman but told her what she would be expected to do with it.
While not at all surprised, Miss Anthony was greatly disgusted with the action of the Republican and Democratic conventions, but, determined to leave nothing undone, she soon afterwards called upon General Garfield at Mentor. He was cordial and expressed himself in favor of equality for woman in matters of education, work, wages and civil rights, but was not ready to declare himself in favor of the suffrage and, as was always the case, urged that the issue be not pressed during that campaign. Mrs. Blake and others visited General Hancock, the Democratic candidate, and the New York Sun reports the interview in part:
Mrs. Blake said the delegation had come to ask the general what hope the woman suffrage party might entertain in case any measure came before him, as President, which bore upon granting women the ballot. The general replied that the movement was a growing one, and that everything which tended toward the amelioration of woman's condition had his sympathy. In the course of conversation he said that women should be paid equally with men for the same work equally well performed.
Mrs. Slocum said that the delegation desired a decided expression from him as to whether he would or would not veto any measure favorable to woman suffrage that might come before him as President. The general replied that if such a measure were voted upon by Congress as a constitutional amendment, it would not come before the President. If, however, Congress accorded women the right to vote in the District of Columbia, he certainly would offer no obstruction.
Mrs. Blake asked if he considered women as "people."
"Undoubtedly," replied the general. "He would be a bold man who would undertake to say they were not."
"Then, general," said Mrs. Blake, "we ask nothing more than what you say in your letter of acceptance: 'It is only by a full vote, a free ballot and a fair count that the people can rule in fact, as required by the theory of our government.'"
"I am perfectly willing," said General Hancock, "that you should say I take my stand on that paragraph in my letter of acceptance."
In order to exhaust every resource, Miss Anthony, on August 17, addressed this letter to each of the presidential candidates:
As vice-president-at-large of the National Woman Suffrage Association, I am instructed to ask you if, in the event of your election, you, as President of the United States, would recommend to Congress the submission to the several legislatures of a Sixteenth Amendment to the National Constitution, prohibiting the disfranchisement of United States citizens on account of sex. 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.
General Hancock did not so much as acknowledge the receipt of this, but General Garfield answered promptly, writing with his own hand:
Your letter of the 17th inst. was duly received. I take the liberty of asking your personal advice before I answer your official letter. I assume 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 which 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 friendship.
With kind regards, I am, very truly yours.
Under date of September 9 Miss Anthony sent a spirited reply:
Yours of the 25th ult. has waited all these days that I might carefully consider it.
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. 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. 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 Rhode Island the right to "abridge" the suffrage to foreign born men; and to all the States to "deny" it to women, in direct violation of the principle of national supremacy. 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 the presidential election of 1876—Hayes can not in 1880—nor will Garfield be able to do so in 1884—for the "scepter 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 is one vital to its very life, it seems to me would be the grandest act imaginable. For doing that very thing, with regard to the protection of the negroes of the South, you are today receiving more praise from the best men of the party than for any and all of your utterances inside the line of the platform. 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 which would have fired the hearts of the women of the entire nation, and made the triumph of the Republican party more grand and glorious than any it ever has seen.
Third.—As to picking fruit before it is ripe! Allow me to remind you that very much fruit is never picked; some is nipped in the bud; some is worm-eaten and falls to the ground; some rots on the trees before it ripens; some, too slow in ripening, is bitten by the early frosts of autumn; while some rare, ripe apples hang until frozen and worthless on the leafless boughs! Really, Mr. Garfield, if after passing through the war of the rebellion and sixteen years in Congress; if after seeing and hearing and repeating that no class 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 can not yet see the truth of the great principle of individual self-government; if you have reached only the idea of class-government, and that, too, of the most hateful and cruel form—bounded by sex—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, but because, in the nature of things, it is impossible for any government to protect a disfranchised class in equality of chances. Women, to get justice, must have political freedom. But pardon this long trespass 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 standpoint of the 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.