Elizabeth Cady Stanton SPEECHES & WRITINGS FILE Article: "What Should Be Our Attitude Towards Political Parties," The Woman's Tribune [n.d.] With draft [no date] What should be our attitude be towards political parties. I regretted very much, that I could not have been present, during the discussion, on the attitude the Woman Suffrage Association should maintain, towards political parties, especially as none of the speakers represented the side of the question I should have taken. It seems marvelous to me, that not one word was said in the opposition, unless the presence of three gentlemen all on one side awed those ladies who might have differed to silence. The discussion, if discussion it might be called by courtesy with all one side, reminded me of the preface of an old book on etiquette I once owned which said "never discuss politics religion or social problems in the presence of ladies, for men seldom appear like gentlemen in controversy." As the platform of the suffrage association is one for the discussion of the broadest 2 political questions, namely the civil, political, religious, social, educational, industrial rights of one half the people, it is folly to say that we will have nothing to do with political parties, that our safety is to hold ourselves free from all "entangling alliances." Nothing easier to do, as all the parties in turn have clearly shown that they desire no "entangling alliances" with us & that is our misfortune. Our association is like a helpless little craft at sea, tossed about for forty years, in a vain search for the beautiful Atlantis. Though the poor little craft has been long buffeted by the winds & the waves, riddled by the shafts of the curious, to find out whether it was a vessel or a whale, though it owns no coaling station, no flag, no country, yet the passengers will not consent to any nautical affiliations, even to send up signals of distress, 3 lest through "entangling alliances" with some of the great lines of steamers it should be swallowed up. A rope from a great vessel in the hour of danger, a calculation by their chart & compass for latitude & longitude. Some knowledge of the path across the ocean might all be reassuring & suggestive. did not the fear of some "entangling alliance" drive the little craft with a dreary isolation, to encounter fogs, cyclones, & icebergs, unaided and alone. Now friends, what are we as an association after? A flag, a country, a political party, education in the science of government, to be recognized citizens in a republic. Does any sane person suppose we can conquer all this by sweet words, & a non-partisan position? by standing [aloft] aloof from all parties & sects? No, no, our demands are to be made & carried like all other political questions, by the aid of & affiliations with parties. Where is the truth on any 4 given point, is a greater question than the route we take in quest of it. If "our" platform as one gentleman tells us, "is to be strictly educational" must we not discuss all the vital issues of the hour? The day is not distant when we are to vote on all questions up for consideration & now is the time for preparation. Mr Hinckley warns us against narrow methods & Prohibition. Mr. [F?oulke] against expressing any opinion on marriage & divorce, or taking part in any ordinary political discussions. & Mr Blackwell warns us against the deceitfulness of political parties & platforms & the danger of an "entangling alliances" with Prohibition. There really is some danger if we obey these gentlemen implicitly that we shall be too exclusive for any earthly affiliation whatsoever. Mr [F?oulke] says he should regret to see the suffrage association taking a position advocating any kind of divorce. As the question is up for consideration both in England & America, as all the laws & customs of society make marriage a most unequal contract between man & woman it seems 31 to me, that this is preeminently the association, above all others, that should take the lead, & point the way to a true relation. Where is there a body of men, as well educated in the rights of women, as those women who have stood forty years on this platform, that we should trust them to take the initiative in the discussion of this question? We have had man's idea both in his canon & civil laws. We have had his example experimenting in every form of social relation, & now shall men tell us, that on the only political platform where woman has a right to express his opinion, that it does not behove us at this time & place, to send forth the true clarion note in any question, concerning the civil, political, & social rights of woman? Are we to stand humble petitioners forty years longer, with bated breath to hear what man may say, on any given question, before an opinion from woman's standpoint is opportune on her own platform? Man has expressed his opinion fully & freely on the question of divorce, from Milton down to Gladstone, & a respectful silence best becomes him now until woman 6 is free to give an intelligent opinion. But Mr [Yourke?] further says. that if the question were submitted to the suffrages of women the laws would be tightened rather than relaxed. What data has Mr [Yourke], on which to form such an opinion? And suppose his assumption were true? If wives generally feel that they need added guarantees, for the faithfulness of husbands, why should they not have them? But statistics show that the majority of divorces are asked for by women. When Naquet's bill passed the Chamber of Deputies in 1882 3000 divorces were asked for the first year, & the majority by women. I do not think I could agree with Mrs Sewall, in accepting Mr Foulke as my representative. In fact I have never yet seen or heard the man that I thought understood "the woman question" in all its bearings, unless I should make an exception in favor of William Loyd Garrison, who was the clearest sighted reformer this or any other country ever produced. 7 The woman question precipitated into the antislavery conflict was severest strain the antislavery movement ever had. Yet Mr Garrison stood by the principle [question] of human rights [both] in the conventions both in New York & London.* Not even for the sake of the cause so near his heart would he purchase peace for his association at the expense of woman. No warning words, through all that bitter controversy on the woman question, ever escaped his lips as to that "entangling alliance" * See History of Woman Suffrage Vol 1. pg 61. [with it injuring the antislavery movement. As to the divorce which I introduced with one of our early conventions even in opposition to Mr. Phillips he said] [Mr. Hinkley lays down a broad platform, when he says "Equality of rights in all respects for men & women," very good this allows the discussion of all laws & customs in church & state & social life where there is the most disparity between men & women] 7 1/2 injuring the antislavery cause as to the Divorce question which I introduced into one of our early conventions, he was equally clear & liberal even in opposition to Mr. Phillips. Mr. Garrison said he fully concurred in opinion with his friend, Mr. Phillips that they had not come together to settle definitely the question of marriage, as such, on that platform; still, he should be sorry to have the motion adopted, as against the resolutions of Mrs. Stanton, because they were a part of her speech, and her speech was an elucidation of her resolutions, which were offered on her own responsibility, not on behalf of the Business Committee, and which did not, therefore, make the Convention responsible for them. It seemed to him that, in the liberty usually taken on that platform, both by way of argument and illustration, to show the various methods by which woman was unjustly, yet legally, subjected to the absolute control of man, she ought to be permitted to present her own sentiments. It was not the specific object of an Anti-Slavery Convention--for example--to discuss the conduct of Rev. Nehemiah Adams, or the position of Stephen A. Douglas, or the course of The York Herald; yet they did, incidentally, discuss all these, and many other matters closely related to the great struggle for the freedom of the slave. So this question of marriage came in as at least incidental to the main question of the equal rights of woman. Mr. Hinckley lays down a broad platform when he says "Equality of rights in all respects for men & women." Very good! This allows the discussion of all laws & customs where there is the least disparity between men & women. This is the most extreme radical position I have ever advocated. 8. But on the heel of this he warns us against Prohibition. When Frances Willard marshalls an army a hundred thousand strong on our platform I think we gain in the affiliation more than we lose. Liquor dealers are not so blind to their interests as not to have seen the ultimate effect of woman suffrage in the temperance movement long before the Rhode Island election. Conservatives always see more clearly than radicals themselves where their principles ultimately lead. They told us in the beginning, that the woman's rights movement meant a complete revolution in the state, the church, & the home; and those who have the least prescience now see that it does, although we denied the impeachment when starting. We cannot carry women suffrage by clap-trap, by pretending that we have no strong proclivities on any other question. The woman-suffrage gospel is not like blown glass, so frail that we must guard it carefully & continuously lest it be shattered, [to pieces] nor is our platform made of such elastic timber, that it cannot bear the weight 9 of the whole mountain of sorrows that oppresses the souls of women. My idea of political parties is to affiliate in some way with them whenever & wherever we have opportunity, if any feel inclined to affiliate with us. If I lived in Kansas, I should use my voice & pen to help the Republican party, above all others, simply because it has taken one step in the right direction on woman suffrage. I should not care whether it was for or against land monopoly, fur trade, paper money, or Prohibition, because I consider woman- suffrage, involving as it does the fundamental rights of one half the people, a larger question than any one of these, or all put together. If the Prohibition party in some other state, put a well-seasoned plank in its platform for woman-suffrage, I would help that party all I could in that state. If the Labor party in another declared itself unmistakably for woman-suffrage I would go for that party in that state. 10 If the Democratic party in New York, would declare itself for woman-suffrage, I would use all my influence to help that party carry the State election. If at a Presidential election all the parties should adopt an equally strong plank for woman-suffrage, I would go for the party most likely to succeed in carrying woman suffrage. I think it is wise to try them, each & all every Presidential campaign, & see what recognition we can get out of them, & it is good policy too to hold one of our National Conventions right under their eyes every time. Even if they do behave as badly as Mr Blackwell represents [them], we get some agitation out of it, & agitation is the primary school in political education. When we get the suffrage it will be through some political party, so we may as well begin to study the nature & assailable points of such organizations, first as last, & the more entangling the alliance the better, so that they cannot sever 11 it. Justin McCarthy in a recent speech on the woman suffrage platform said "Women will never get the suffrage, until like the Crist party they arrive at the point of seating & unseating ministries." Look at all the rebuffs the [Quit?] members have had in the House of Commons and how slowly step by step they have climbed into power. When we can seat & unseat Congressmen by affiliating with some party & thus making our influence seen & felt, all parties will stand ready to do us honor. Woman suffrage will be our test of political friendship, & we shall express our opinion freely, on all parties & politicians, & the vital questions of the hour But where can we do this if not on our own platform? It is very well for the three gentlemen who led in the discussion, who are members of the ruling [power] class, who have their political platform astride the suffrage association, for the expression of their opinions on general topics, to set limits to our freedom, to 12 tell us what does & what does not legitimately belong to our platform. It is very well for those women who have implicit confidence in man's judgment, who feel that men can & do represent them to accept their advice, but I for one should accept the advice of members of the masculine aristocracy, with great reservation, on all questions regarding women. We must remember that men came into our association, with the ordinary feelings of men, as to their own superiority, & our natural position of subjection as to their strength, & our weakness, their wisdom, our folly, their gift of reason & our blind instinct. They cannot throw off nor disguise the education of centuries & women naturally accord to them whatever position they take. Hence I do not agree with Mr Foulke when he says "it would be a source of weakness, for the suffrage association to be comprised entirely of women." I think we need no better proof of it that this discussion, in which the women who did speak 13 simply echoed what the men said, beside paying one of them the most fulsome compliments. I should be very sorry to see all discussion of the Liquor Traffic forbidden on our platform. Woman has rights & duties in this reform, that cannot be trusted to any body of men to accomplish. Thus far man has had all legislation on the question in his own hands. He has tried high license local option & Prohibition, wherever & whenever he [sees] has seen fit. [He has all the legislation on the question in his own]. He makes liquor as a beverage in all possible varieties, & sells it under all sorts of attractive names, & sets his nets for the unwary, in every street & highway in the land. His victims shadow every fireside, fill our jails & prisons, & cause death & destruction on every side. If they fear woman suffrage as the avenging angel to end all this, I trust the fear may soon be a fact, & that to woman suffrage may be the glory of abolishing the most terrible evil, that has ever cursed mankind. If an "entangling alliance" with [the] 14 [with] Prohibition should delay woman's enfranchisement; for a final victory over such an enemy to all her most sacred relations, as mother, daughter, sister, wife; to the peace, [permanency?] & prosperity of the home; we can afford to wait. Woman needs the discussion of this question on our platform fully & freely before she can decide whether the best mode of attack [is?] through high license, local [option?], or Prohibition, & may the Spirit of [?] [God?] anoint our eyes to see what is right on every question. /end Mrs. Lenuh says "We have no right, even impliedly, to say, because a political party will pledge itself to put into our hands the ballot, that therefore we shall deposit that ballot for the advancement of that political party and for the retaining of that political party in power. I think that we should always place ourselves so squarely there could be no danger of misunderstanding our position." I think under such circumstances, we should show very little pertinent knowledge, if one did not sustain such a party with all the influence we could muster. It would be very difficult to understand common sense women taking such a position. A party of saints & angels would not stand by us in the face of such ingratitude. I must say I was grieve &, disappointed with the discussion on this point. The Woman's Tribute What Should be our Attitude Towards Political Parties --- -- I regretted very much that I could not have been present during the discussion on the attitude the Woman Suffrage Association should maintain towards political parties, especially, as none of the speakers represented the side of the question I should have taken. It seems marvelous to me that not one word was said in the opposition, unless the presence of three gentlemen, all on one side, awed those ladies who might have differed to silence. The discussion, if discussion it might be called by courtesy, with all on one side, reminded me of the preface of an old book on etiquette I once owned which said, "never discuss politics, religion, or social problems in the presence of ladies, for men seldom appear like gentlemen in controversy." As the platform of the suffrage association is one for the discussion of the broadest political questions, namely: the civil, political, religious, social, educational, and industrial rights of one-half the people, it is folly to say that we will have nothing to do with political parties, that our safety is to hold ourselves free from all "entangling alliances." Nothing easier to do, as all the parties in turn have clearly shown that they desire no "entangling alliances" with us, and that is our misfortune. Our association is like a helpless little craft at sea, tossed about for forty years, in a vain search for the beautiful Atlantis. Though the poor little craft has been long buffeted by the winds and the waves riddled by the shafts of the curious to find out whether it was a vessel or a whale, though it owns no coaling station, no flag no country, yet the passengers will not consent to any nautical affiliations, even to send up the signals of distress, lest through "entangling alliances" with some of the great lines of steamers it should be swallowed up. A rope from great vessel in the hour of danger, a calculation by their chart and compass for latitude and longitude, some knowledge of the path across the ocean might all be reassuring and suggestive, did not the fear of some "entangling alliance." drive the little craft into a dreary isolation to encounter fogs, cyclones, and icebergs, unaided and alone. Now friends, what are we as an association after? a flag, a country, a political party, education in the science of government, to be recognized citizens in a republic. Does any sane person suppose we can conquer all this by sweet words and a non-partisan position, by standing aloof from all parties and sects? No, no, our demands are to be made and carried like all other political questions, by the aid of and affiliations with parties. Where is the truth on any given point is a greater question than the route we take in quest of it. If "our platform," as one gentleman tells us, "is to be strictly education" must we not discuss all the vital issues of the hour? The day is not distant when we are to vote on all questions up for consideration, and now is the time for preparation. Mr. Hinckley warns us against narrow methods and prohibition. Mr. Foulke, against expressing any opinion on marriage and divorce, or taking part in any ordinary political discussions And Mr, Blackwell warns us against the deceitfulness of political parties and platforms and the danger of an "entangling alliance" with Prohibition. There really is more danger if we obey these gentlemen implicitly that we shall be too exclusive for any earthly affiliation whatsoever. Mr. Foulke says he should regret to see the suffrage association taking a position advocating any kind of divorce. As the question is up for consideration both in England and America, and as all the laws and customs of society make marriage a most unequal contract between man and woman, it seems to me, that this is preeminently the association, above all others, that should take the lead, and point the way to a true relation. Where is there a body of men as well educated in the rights of women as those women who have stood forty years on this platform, that we should trust them to take the initiative in the discussion on this question? We have had man's ide[a] both in his cannon and civil laws. We have [h]ad his example experimenting in every [area] of social [rel]ation, and now shall men tell us that on the only political platform where woman has a right to express her opinion, that it does not behoove us at this time and place, to send forth the true clarion note on any question concerning the civil, political, and social rights of women? Are we to stand humble petitioners forty years longer with bated breath to hear what man may say on any given question before an opinion from woman's own standpoint is opportune on her own platform? Man has expressed his opinion fully and freely on the question of divorce, from Milton down to Gladstone, and a respectful silence best becomes him now until woman is free to give an intelligent opinion. But Mr. Foulke further says that if the question were submitted to the suffrages of women the laws would be tightened rather than relaxed. What data has Mr. Foulke on which to form such an opinion? And suppose his assumptions were true? If wives generally feel that they need added guarantees for the faithfulness of husbands, why should they not have them? But statistics show that the majority of divorces are asked for by women. When M. Naquet's bill passed the Chamber of Deputies in 1882, 3000 divorces were asked for the first year, and the majority by women. I do not think I could agree with Mrs. Sewall in accepting Mr. Foulke as my representative. In fact I have never yet seen or heard the man that I thought understood "the woman question" in all its bearings unless I should make an exception in favor of William Loyd Garrison, who was the clearest sighted reformer this or any other country ever produced. [93] The woman question precipitated into the anti-slavery conflict was the severest strain the anti-slavery movement ever had. Yet Mr.Garrison stood by the principle of human rights in the conventions both in New York and London.* Not even for the sake of the cause so near his heart would he purchase peace for his association at the expense of woman. No warning words through all that bitter controversy on the woman question ever escaped his lips as to that "entangling alliance" injuring the anti-slavery cause. As to the divorce question, [94] [ ] one of our early conventions, he was equally clear and liberal, even in opposition to Mr. Phillips.[95] Mr. Garrison said he fully concurred in opinion with his friend, Mr. Phillips, that they had not come together to settle definitely the question of marriage, as such, on that platform; still, he should be sorry to have the motion adopted, as against the resolutions of Mrs. Stanton, because they were a part of her speech, and her speech was an elucidation of her resolutions, which were offered on her own responsibility, not on behalf of the Business committee, and which did not, therefore, make the convention responsible for them. It seemed to him htat, in the liberty usually taken on that platform, both by way of argument and illustration, to show the various methods by which woman was unjustly, yet legally, subjected to the absolute control of man, she ought to be permitted to present her own sentiments. It was not the specific object of an Anti-Slavery Convention - for example - to discuss the conduct of Rev. Nehemiah Adams, or the position of Stephen A. Douglas, or the course of The York Herald; yet they did, incidently, discuss all these, and many other matters closely related to the great struggle for the freedom of the slave. So the question of marriage came in as at least incidental to the main question of the equal rights of woman. Mr. Hinckley lays down a broad platform when he says "Equality of rights in all respects for men and women." Very good! This allows the discussion of all laws and customs where there is the least disparity between men and women. this is the most extreme radical position I have ever advocated. But on the heel of this he warns us against prohibition. When Frances Willard marshalls an army a hundred thousand strong on our platform I think we gain in the affiliation more than we lose. Liquor dealers are not so blind to their interests as not to have sen the ultimate effect of woman suffrage on the temperance movement long before the Rhode Island election. Conservatives always see more clearly than radicals themselves where their principles ultimately lead. They told us in the beginning that the woman's rights movement meant a complete revolution in the state, the church, and the home; and those who have the least prescience now see that it does, although we denied the impeachment when starting. We cannot cary woman suffrage by claptrap, by pretending that we have no strong proclivities on any other question. The woman-suffrage gospel is not like blown glass, so frali that we must guard it carefully and continually lest it be shattered; nor is our platform made of such elastic timber that it cannot bear the weight of the whole mountain of sorrows that oppresses the souls of women. My idea of political parties is to affiliate in some way with them whenever and wherever we have the opportunity, if any feel inclined to affiliate with us. If I lived in Kansas I should use my voice and pen to help the Republican party, above all other, simply because it has taken one step in the right direction on woman suffrage. I should not care whether it was for or against land monopoly, free trade, paper money, or prohibition, because I consider woman-suffrage involving as it does the fundamental right of one half the people, a larger question than any one of these or all put together. [*96*] If the Prohibition party in some other State put a well-seasoned plank in its platform for woman-suffrage. I would help that party all I could in that State. If the Labor party in another declared itself unmistakably for woman-suffrage I would go for that party in that State. If the Democratic party in New York would declare itself for woman-suffrage I would use all my influence to help that party carry the State election. If at a Presidential election all the parties should adopt an equally strong plank for woman-suffrage, I would go for the party most likely to succeed in carrying woman-suffrage. I think it is wise to try them, each and all, every Presidential campaign, and see what recognition we can get out of the, and it is good policy too to hold one of our National conventions right under their eyes every time. Even if they do behave as Mr. Blackwell represents, we get some agitatiion out of it, and agitation is the primary school in political education. When we get the suffrage it will be through some political party, so we may as well begin to study the nature and assailable points of such organizations, first as last, and the more entangling the alliance the better so that they cannot sever it. Justin McCarthy in a recent speech on the woman-suffrage platform said: "Women will never get the suffrage until, like the Irish party, they aim at the point of seating and unseating ministries." Look at all the rebuffs the Irish members have has in the House of Commons and how slowly step by step they have climbed into power. When we can seat and unseat Congressmen by affiliating with some party and thus making our influence seen and felt, all parties will stand ready to do us honor. Woman suffrage will be our test of political friendship, and we shall express our opinion freely on all parties and politicians and the vital questions of the hour. But where can we do this if not on our own platform? It is very well for the three gentlemen who led in the discussion, who are members of the ruling class, who have their political platform outside the suffrage association, for the expression of their opinions on general topics, to set limits to our freedom, to tell us what does and what does not legitimately belong to our platform, it is very well for those women who have implicit confidence in man's judgment, who feel that men can and do represent them, to accept their advice, but I, for one should accept the advice of members of the masculine aristocracy with great reservation on all questions regarding women. We must remember that men came into our association with the ordinary feelings of men, as to their own superiority, and our natural position of subjection; as to their strength and weakness; their wisdom, our folly; their gift of reason, and our blind instinct. [97] They cannot throw off nor disguise the education of centureis, and women naturally accord them whatever poitision they take. I should be very sorry to see all discussion of the liquor traffic forbidden on our platform. Woman has rights and duties in this reform that cannot be trusted to any body of men to accomplish. Thus far man has had [?] legislation on the question in his own hands. He has tried high license, local option, and prohibition., wherever and whenever his heas sen fit. He make liquor as a beverage in all possible varieties, and sells it under all sorts of attractive names, and sets his nets for the unwary in every street and highly in the land. His victims shadow every fireside, fill our jails and prisons, and cause death a destruction on every side. If they fear woman suffrage as the avenging angel to end all this, I trust the fear may soon be a fact, and that to woman suffrage may be the glory of abolishing the most terrible evil that has ever cursed mankind. If an "entangling alliance with prohibition should delay woman's enfranchisement; for a final victory over such an enemy to all her most sacred relations, as mother, daughter, sister, wife, to the peace, permanancy, and prosperity of the home; we can afford to wait. [98] Woman needs the discussion of this question on our platform, fully and freely, before she can decide whether the best mode of attack lies through high license, local option, or prohibition, and may the Spirit of all Good anoint our eyes to see what is right on every questions - Elizabeth Cady Stanton Transcribed and reviewed by volunteers participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.