Copyright, 1916, by
J. A. HAIEN
All Rights Reserved
Gratefully Dedicated
to the 295,939 Massachusetts Men
Who, on Election Day, 1915
Endorsed the Anti-Suffrage Sentiments
of the Women of Massachusetts
The essays in this little book are by anti-suffragewomen who were prominent speakers, writers, andorganizers, in the campaign of 1915. They voice sentimentswhich gained the largest measure of popularsupport ever accorded in the history of Massachusettspolitics.
The largest number of votes any political partypolled in Massachusetts before 1915 was 278,976.The anti-suffragists polled 295,939. Since 1896 therehas been but one instance in which the voters gaineda plurality amounting to 110,000 votes. The anti-suffragistswon by 133,447 votes. Alton B. Parker'sdefeat by Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 is commonlyregarded as typifying political annihilation; but thesuffragists in 1915 did not poll as many votes as Mr.Parker, and the anti-suffragists polled 38,000 morethan President Roosevelt at the height of his popularity.Such outworn words as "overwhelming" and"landslide," which have been regularly used to describevictories not half so great as this, understate the[Pg x]actual extent of the anti-suffrage triumph. The pronouncedaversion which Massachusetts showed towardsHorace Greeley in the presidential campaign of 1872,and towards William J. Bryan in that of 1896, scarcelyexceeded that which she feels towards the suffragiststoday.
The grounds of this aversion are so numerous thatit is difficult to determine which of the many causes ofthe anti-suffrage victory were the most powerful.In my opinion, however, Massachusetts men defeatedwoman suffrage chiefly because (1) they discoveredthat nine women out of ten did not want to vote;(2) they knew that the creation of a large body ofstay-at-home voters would result in bad government;and (3) they grew disgusted with the temperament,the notions, and the methods typical of the few womenwho clamored for the vote.
For at least two generations suffragists have beenspending a huge amount of energy and money in spreadingtheir doctrine. Contributions, mainly drawn froma few rich women, have enabled them to send professionalspeakers into every district of the state, to distributetons of "literature," to supply the press witha constant stream of "news" written from their pointof view, and in general to advertise their claims in themost lavish way. A propaganda so subsidized wouldhave been successful decades ago if sound principlesand common sense were on its side. But to their consternationthe suffragists found that the vast majorityof Massachusetts women turned a deaf ear to their[Pg xi]plausible appeals, and that their strongest opponentswere those of their own sex.
Suffragists continued to talk about what "wewomen" want. But men presently began to see thatthese women had no right to pretend to represent theirsex. Even their own claims as to the number of womensupporting them showed that they represented onlybetween 5% and 10% of the women of Massachusetts.At least 90% of the w