F
M WHITAKER
Ohio WCTU and the Prohibition
Amendment Campaign of 1883
The Woman's Christian Temperance Union
may be said to be a product of Ohio in
at least two ways One, its foundation is the only lasting
result of a phenomenon of
the winter and spring of 1873-1874 known
as the Woman's Crusade, which
achieved its first success and national
recognition in Ohio This movement, in
which bands of respectable ladies
marched in groups upon saloons in various loca-
tions, singing, praying, and exhorting
both the dispenser and consumer of alcoholic
beverages to cease and desist, attracted
attention first at Hillsboro and recorded its
initial success, the closing of all the
liquor dispensaries in town, at Washington
Court House Two, an organization officially calling itself the Woman's
Christian
Temperance Union was first formally
instituted in Ohio in June 1874 A
national
organization of the same name was not
formed until the following November in a
meeting held at Cleveland Yet the WCTU was never as strong in Ohio as
in several
other states One key reason for this may be found in an examination of the
devel-
opment and consequences of a campaign
mounted in 1883 to add an amendment to
Ohio's constitution forever prohibiting
the manufacture and sale of all intoxicating
liquors within the boundaries of the
state This campaign seems in retrospect
to
represent the peak of the Ohio WCTU's
independent influence and power.
The Ohio WCTU was not at its inception
an organization which could be called
distinctly prohibitionist, i e , committed
to the total abolition of the liquor traffic.
There was, in fact, a good deal of
debate in the group's earliest years as to the pro-
priety of any sort of political activity
on the part of those who called themselves
ladies
The debate began in the course of the Woman's Crusade itself Those who
opposed the movement often claimed that
it was some sort of political trick aimed
at influencing the municipal elections
to be held that spring; those who favored it,
or were at least not openly hostile,
tended to maintain that the Crusade's success de-
pended upon the women's avoidance of
politics and political entanglements
Some
support for the opponents' position was
provided by the readiness of the ladies and
especially their gentlemen allies to
resort to the use of legal pressure when prayer
did not readily produce success Support is also provided by the fact that
the move-
ment seemed to die out after the April
1874 municipal elections, many of which
Mr
Whitaker is an Assistant Professor of History on the Marion Campus of
The Ohio State University.
Ohio WCTU 85
turned on the question of the passage or
enforcement of local prohibitory laws, were
over.1
The specific question of the
desirability and/or practicality of striving for immedi-
ate or even eventual prohibition
appeared as early as the first of three meetings that
ultimately produced the Ohio WCTU. The
first meeting, held at Columbus in Feb-
ruary 1874 while the Crusade was at its
height, saw Dio Lewis, the man who was
generally acknowledged to be the
instigator of the movement, expressing the view
that any talk of prohibition would only
retard the progress of the Crusade. Despite
a speech in rebuttal by John Russell,
Vice Presidential candidate of the National
Prohibition party in the campaign of
1872, the majority of those present appeared to
agree with Lewis.2
The question came up again at a second
meeting of the women crusaders and
their supporters in April. This meeting
had been called for the specific purpose of
encouraging the Ohio Constitutional
Convention then sitting at Cincinnati to main-
tain inviolate the provision in the
constitution of 1851 which forbade the legislature
in any way to license the traffic in
intoxicating liquors.3 The resolutions committee
report called for a memorial to the
convention pleading for the retention of the 1851
anti-license clause. The flash point of
the convention was a minority report by
some members of the resolutions
committee which called upon the constitutional
convention to make total prohibition of
the liquor traffic a part of the new con-
stitution. Mr. S. J. Stewart of
Steubenville, who presented the minority report, said
although the majority of the committee
felt that public sentiment was not yet ready
for prohibition, the minority wished to
take a bolder ground and prohibit the liquor
trade altogether. Several women spoke in
opposition to this approach. One said,
"if they could not get a
prohibitory law they should do the next best thing and get
all the law they could." Another
said that the question of prohibition had killed
one convention in the city of Columbus
and had nearly killed another. This con-
vention had been called to give
expression to the sentiments of Temperance people
on the question of "license"
or "no-license" and she hoped it would not be led into
what she called "side issues."
A third hoped that the convention "would have noth-
ing to do with the vexing question of
prohibition." The majority report of the reso-
lutions committee was adopted by an
"overwhelming vote."4
Thus the ladies who were to form the
Ohio WCTU in June were distinctly cool to
the idea of prohibition as of the early
spring of 1874. There appears, in fact, to
have existed a considerable degree of
doubt in the minds of these women con-
cerning the propriety of their engaging
in politics at all, but many of the so-called
"Praying Bands" had been
active in behalf of various "Temperance Tickets" at the
spring elections. As already noted, the
April convention had been called to urge
the constitutional convention to act in
accordance with their wishes. These actions
would certainly seem to come under the
heading of political activity. Yet the very
word "political" seemed to
frighten them.
1. F. M. Whitaker, "A History of
the Ohio Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 1874-1920" (un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State
University, 1971), Chapter 2.
2. Cincinnati Commercial, February
26, 1874.
3. Whitaker, "OWCTU," 203-208.
4. Minutes of this meeting are found on
pp. 12-26 of the first of two volumes of manuscript minutes
now in the possession of the Ohio WCTU at its
headquarters in Columbus. (Hereafter they will be re-
ferred to as "Manuscript
Minutes" with the volume number and page.) Manuscript Minutes, I, 15,
18-19. See also Cincinnati Commercial,
April 23, 1874.
86 OHIO
HISTORY
In May of 1874 there was held at
Mansfield a joint meeting of two committees of
the ladies, one of which had been
elected at the February convention in Columbus
and the other at the April convention in
Cincinnati. These committees jointly
passed a resolution which appears to
have expressed an important matter of concern
since it was readopted word for word by
three similar meetings during 1874. The
resolution read: "Resolved, that
while we acknowledge that a result of the woman's
movement will be to create temperance
law, we do believe the more exclusively it is
confined to prayer work, regarding
woman's part as spiritual, and of divine origin,
carefully maintaining this character,
the greater will be our success."5
The question of the propriety of
political action arose in its most acute form at a
third general meeting held in the city
of Springfield on June 17, 1874. It was at this
meeting that the name "Woman's Christian
Temperance Union" was formally
adopted and the organization given its
final form. Yet these actions were taken al-
most as an afterthought. What concerned
the delegates primarily was the fact that
the Ohio Constitutional Convention had
ignored their pleas and submitted to the
voters along with the proposed
constitution of 1874 a provision which would allow
the General Assembly to license and
regulate the manufacture and sale of in-
toxicating liquors. At least one
newspaper account designated the organization for
the defeat of the so-called
"license clause" as the "leading object" for which the
WCTU convention was assembled.6 Of the
ten resolutions presented to the conven-
tion by the resolutions committee and
duly adopted, five dealt directly with the
campaign against license.
The first of these resolutions was
adopted by the convention without debate. In
its entirety the resolution said:
"Resolved, that we consider the traffic in in-
toxicating liquors as a beverage,
criminal: and that, as advocates of temperance,
we will use our influence in all
suitable ways to elevate such men to office as will use
their official authority to create and
enforce such laws as will most effectually sup-
press this ruinous and immoral
traffic."7 This statement would seem to be a clear
call for political action. To the
assembled delegates, however, it apparently was
not.
The second resolution reported by the
committee, which appears to say the same
thing in different words, caused debate
that was called both "long and heated" and
"sharp." The resolution as
reported by the committee read: "Resolved, That we
will increasingly oppose the giant evil
of intemperance, by personal, social, and po-
litical influence, and by the press, by
the pulpit, by speech, and by prayer." A mo-
tion was made to strike out the word
"political" and the debate was on. Delegates
from the northern part of the state,
especially those from Cleveland, were reported
as being particularly opposed to the
motion. The debate took up the rest of the af-
ternoon and was resumed after a recess
for dinner. Finally an amended resolution
was accepted and the motion to strike
the word "political" defeated. As amended
the resolution read, "That we, each
in our appropriate sphere, and by all proper
means, not as partisans, but as
Christian citizens, will unceasingly oppose the giant
evil of intemperance by personal,
social, and political influence, by the press, by the
pulpit, and by prayer."8
It will be seen that four new clauses
were added to the amended resolution. The
5. Manuscript Minutes, I, 33.
6. Cincinnati Commercial, June
18, 1874; Manuscript Minutes, I, 45-48.
7. Ibid., 43-44.
8. Ibid., 44, 45; Cincinnati Commercial, June 18, 1874.
Ohio WCTU 87
first two, "each in our appropriate
sphere, and by all proper means," seem clearly to
be aimed at calming the fears of those
who were concerned with standards of female
propriety then in vogue. It seems
equally clear that the other two, "not as partisans,
but as Christian citizens," were
aimed at calming the fears of those who were con-
cerned lest the movement be taken over
by the Prohibition party and/or lead to the
defeat of Republican candidates in
subsequent elections, fears which had been ex-
pressed as early as the preceding
February. Commenting on the resolution as fi-
nally passed, the Cincinnati Commercial
confessed itself unable to understand how
political action could be taken without
partisanship but maintained that those who
opposed the resolution must have known
that political action was inevitable "when
social questions upon which it [Ohio
WCTU] acts and which it aims to determine,
are inseparable from State
politics."9
Perhaps, as it appears from the records,
many delegates were still uneasy con-
cerning this resolution. On the morning
of the second day, Mrs. S. K. Leavitt of
Cincinnati, who less than twenty-four
hours earlier had been calling for the defeat
of the license clause as one of the
primary objectives of the convention, introduced a
resolution which read: "That while
we acknowledge that a result of the Woman's
Movement will be to create temperance
laws, we do believe the more exclusively it
is confined to prayer work, regarding
woman's part as spiritual and of Divine origin,
carefully maintaining this character,
the greater will be our success." She asked
that men not vote on her motion. The
women passed it unanimously. This was, of
course, a word-for-word reiteration of
the resolution passed by the meeting of the
combined committees held at Mansfield in
May and by similar meeting held at
Delaware earlier in June. But even this
failed to calm the nerves of those who were
distressed by the implications of an
overt juxtaposition of women and politics.
Later in the day still another
resolution was presented and adopted, explaining that
"... the action of this Convention
in resolving to oppose the evil of intemperance by
the pulpit, the press, and by every
agency and influence which we can legitimately
command, is not meant to express any
change of our policy as temperance workers
nor any abandonment of the distinctly
religious features of the movement known as
the 'Woman's Crusade,' but simply
indicates our united purpose to do our full duty
as Christians, and religiously employ
all the means which God has placed within
our reach to accomplish the worthy end
we seek."10 This "clarification" apparently
restored calm; the subject was not taken
up again at this convention.
Ohio Republicans were soon to find that
the phrase "not as partisans" meant
exactly what it said. Three months
later, on September 23, 1874, the executive
committee of the Ohio WCTU met at
Delaware. The group was presented with a
request from a "Temperance
Committee of Fifteen" asking that the WCTU concur
in supporting the Republican party in
the state-wide elections of 1874 because of
the position the party had taken on the
question of Temperance in its platform.
The request was denied on the ground
that "We believe the more closely we confine
our work to prayer and related work,
regarding it as spiritual and of Divine origin,
the greater will be our success."
The executive committee did, however, "rejoice in
the step taken by this great political
party in the direction of Temperance reform."11
This position apparently gained the
Union little credit among Republicans. Eliza
Daniel Stewart of Springfield, an ardent
prohibitionist who liked to be known as
9. Ibid., February 26, June 19, 1874.
10. Manuscript Minutes, I 46, 47.
11. Ibid., 63-64.
88 OHIO HISTORY
"Mother" Stewart, later
commented that the Republican Temperance plank, which
she called "a most insignificant
expression" in support of Temperance though it
held the loyalty of "very many
honest but credulous temperance men," drove
enough "liquor men" into
opposition to defeat the Republican ticket. Thereupon
the Republicans "charged their
poor, Crusading wives with breaking up the party,"
she said.12
Once established, the Ohio WCTU spent
the next five years struggling for its very
existence.13 With the Crusade
over and the battle against "license" having ended in
the defeat of the license clause and the
entire proposed constitution of 1874, mem-
bership dropped sharply. Just how
sharply no one really knew. By November of
1875, the organization's secretary had
to admit that "The aggregate membership,
though repeatedly sought after, remains
an indefinite quantity." That there was a
marked shrinkage in membership, however,
was not a matter for doubt. Unions in
many smaller towns and some whole
counties were reported as having merged with
older Temperance organizations, such as
the Good Templars and the Sons of Tem-
perance.14
In the spring of 1877 the Ohio WCTU and
the cause of Temperance in Ohio gen-
erally received a "blessing"
which nearly obliterated what was left of the women's
organization. In the spring of 1874 the
Woman's Crusade in Maine had given rise
to a second movement which one
nineteenth century Temperance historian says
"supplemented" the women's
movement but "soon became but little less con-
spicuous" than the Crusade itself.
This was the so-called Reform Club movement
in which numbers of former drinkers
pledged themselves to drink no more and
banded together in clubs to encourage
each other to keep that pledge.15 This move-
ment reached Ohio in the spring of 1877
and was greeted with rejoicing by the Ohio
WCTU. But the blessing was not unmixed.
Reports during 1878 and 1879 showed
local unions in numerous areas
merging with the local Reform Clubs. When the
movement petered out, as it had
generally done in Ohio by 1880, the expiring local
Reform Clubs took many local unions into
oblivion with them. The Ohio WCTU
had maintained since 1876 that its membership
was about 5,000,16 but figures re-
leased by the National WCTU in 1882
credit Ohio with a membership of only 2,239
in a mere fifty local unions.17
During the same period (1874-1879) in
which the Ohio WCTU was fighting for
its life it was also changing its mind
about prohibition. As of 1874, the Union
clearly thought of prohibition as
something to be hoped for in the future, when pub-
lic opinion was ready to support it. The
April convention's rejection of the idea of
what might be called "Prohibition
Now" has already been discussed. The June
convention, on the other hand, passed
without apparent disagreement a resolution
calling upon the men to band themselves
together in order not only to strengthen
Temperance laws and see to their
enforcement but also "to create anti-license and
prohibition sentiments."18 By
1878 the Ohio WCTU was clearly thinking of prohi-
bition as an immediate goal instead of a
long range one. This change of mind fol-
12. Eliza Daniel Stewart, Memories of
the Crusade ... (Columbus,
1888), 385.
13. Whitaker, "OWCTU,"
233-240.
14. Manuscript Minutes, I, 152, 155,
159, 169.
15. Daniel Dorchester, The Liquor
Problem in All Ages (Cincinnati, 1884), 409-420.
16. Manuscript Minutes, I, 177, 252-271,
306-319; II, 84, 98-99, 101-105, 369.
17. Dorchester, Liquor Problem, 450.
18. Manuscript Minues, I, 49.
Ohio WCTU 89
lowed a series of defeats, not the least
of which was the passage, in March 1875, of a
law withdrawing from municipal
corporations the power to prohibit retail sales of
beer.19 Since this act
invalidated the so-called "beer ordinances" for which the
ladies had fought so hard in the spring
of 1874, it was clearly a resounding defeat
for them.
Early the following year the executive
committee called for a return to battle
through the circulation of three
different petitions, one of which called for the return
to municipal corporations of the power
to prohibit the sale of beer. It was hoped
that the circulation of these petitions
would serve as a propaganda device even if no
more positive results were forthcoming.
Yet it was a discouraging business. In her
farewell address of 1879, Harriet
Calista McCabe of Delaware, the Union's first
president, had to admit that "the
manner in which our legislators have received
these toil-bought expressions of a large
number of their constituents has dis-
heartened our workers insomuch that many
places decline circulating them as a
waste of time and toil."
Nevertheless, despite such discouragement, the Ohio
WCTU in these very same years moved from
a hope for prohibition in the future to
a demand for "Prohibition
Now." In 1877 the annual convention had resolved
"That we [shall] continue our
efforts in the Temperance Reform, until the entire
prohibition of the liquor traffic is
achieved."20 A resolution passed by the conven-
tion of 1878 is even more specific:
Whereas, the sale or supply, in any
manner or form, of intoxicating liquor for use as a bever-
age, is a high crime against society,
inimical to good government, and destructive to the lives,
property, morals, peace, prosperity, and
happiness of the public, therefore
Resolved, 4th. That we
will use our influence, by petitions and otherwise for the total pro-
hibition of this crime by adequate and
stringent laws.21
Still, however, there seemed to exist a
difference of opinion among the Union's
leadership concerning the imminence of
prohibition. A special report to this same
convention discussing in detail the laws
of Ohio dealing with the sale of liquor in-
cluded the statement, "Prohibition
is, of course, the standard which should be set far
in advance of the people, but we must
reach it law by law." All that can be said
with certainty is that a comparison of
the Union's official minutes for 1878 with
those of former years shows a marked
increase in interest in legislative action in the
latter year. The special report just
referred to is only one of such indications, al-
though it is no doubt the major one. It
also seems that this increased interest in leg-
islative action could and did involve an
increased interest in "Prohibition Now" or
in the near future. An anonymous report
to the 1878 convention from Norwalk,
Ohio, for instance, stated that although
previously "our people have generally
thought best not to give too much
prominence to the point," many now called pub-
licly for prohibition as soon as it
could be passed. When the chairwoman of the
Union's committee on petitions asked the
convention for suggestions regarding the
nature of petitions to be circulated
during the coming year, she was told to concen-
trate on prohibition.22 The
convention of 1879 saw an even greater movement to-
ward increased emphasis on the use of
legislative coercion against the liquor traffic,
at least in the minds of the Union's
leadership. In her final speech as president,
19. Delaware Herald, April 3,
1875.
20. Manuscript Minutes, I, 175, 254; II,
48-49, 159.
21. Ibid, 65.
22. Ibid., 70, 94, 128.
|
Harriet McCabe, while still upholding the primacy of prayer in the work of the Ohio WCTU, delineated the new position or emphasis: It is fanaticism to pray "Thy Kingdom Come," fanaticism to strive against intemperance, and then object to such legal measures as are within our reach to suppress it. It is because, by long habit we dissever such measures from God as not being means of his own appoint- ing, that we sometimes err regarding them. The motto, "malice toward none, charity for all," like God's love, means as much a rod of correction, as a smile of approbation, if prop- erly understood. It is Christian effort ultimating in law which makes Christian civilization. That is what all our prayers and efforts mean.23 Yet Mrs. McCabe still took the position, which later leaders were to reject out of hand, that "We will take Local Option, and all that comes in our way, and with our feet joyfully standing on every small gain we may still repeat, as we reach on to pro- hibition, 'Thou Shalt Not,' as our only authority, our only prescribed limit." Cur- iously, the convention of 1879 did not, as a body, again adopt a resolution calling for prohibition. The central committee, however, declared that "our one purpose is to overthrow the traffic in intoxicants in its entirety" and that absolute prohibition was the only way by which this could be achieved. The new attitude is best summed up in Miss Esther Pugh's corresponding secretary's report. Having echoed Mrs. McCabe's contention that love often means the correction of errant behavior, she added, "Nor is it necessary to await the public sentiment which shall demand law. This will be a slow process. Communities have not yet reached this high grade of self-government, but a few strong minds may grasp all the higher possi- bilities and enforce them upon the weak, the ignorant, the vicious."24
23. Ibid., 160-161. 24. Ibid., 149, 183-184, 252. Emphasis added. |
Ohio WCTU 91
While the Ohio WCTU was grappling with
the question of immediate or eventual
prohibition, the Republican party in
Ohio had been wrestling with the entire ques-
tion of the liquor traffic. It was
suggested as early as the first week in March 1874
that a stringent state license law,
requiring high license fees and including a provi-
sion allowing municipal corporations to
ban the sale of intoxicants entirely would be
highly desirable. It was claimed that
some prohibitionists had come around to this
point of view, recognizing that the
"no-license" clause of Ohio's constitution of 1851
was a total failure in that "no
license in the Constitution practically means free
whiskey in the administration."25
It seems probable that the decision by the Con-
stitutional Convention of 1874 to submit
to the voters a separate license clause was
an attempt to please both the
Republicans who wanted regulation of the liquor traf-
fic and the Temperance forces who wanted
to preserve the "no-license" clause of the
constitution of 1851.
As already noted, the Ohio WCTU had
taken a leading role in creating opposi-
tion to this clause which was so
effective that it was said to have been a primary
cause for the rejection by the people of
the entire proposed constitution.26 Despite
this defeat, Ohio Republicans continued
to believe that concern over the cost to the
public of the liquor traffic, especially
in terms of the public costs of the poverty and
crime which consumption of alcoholic
beverages was believed to cause, was an issue
upon which all who were disturbed about
the "liquor problem" could unite, regard-
less of whether their idea of a final
solution was individual abstinence, strict regu-
lation of the traffic by law, or
outright prohibition. Accordingly, the Republican
party in Ohio sought some means by which
a special tax could be levied upon the
liquor business which would help to bear
the increased public burdens thought to be
caused by such business while at the
same time avoiding conflict with the provision
of the still effective constitution of
1851 which forbade any licensing of the sale of
alcoholic beverages. At their party
convention held in Cleveland on June 8, 1881,
Ohio Republicans adopted a resolution
saying that "The public interests require
that the General Assembly should submit
to a vote of the people such amendments
to the Constitution of the State,
relative to the manufacture, sale and use of in-
toxicating liquors as shall leave the
whole matter to legislation."27 It will be noted
that, although the resolution can only
mean that the "no-license" clause was to be
repealed, the fact was nowhere spelled
out. It will also be noted that the adoption
of such an amendment would allow not
only the taxation of the traffic, but licensing
or even prohibition by statute as well.
Having won power in the election of
1881, the Republicans seemed reluctant to
wait upon the slow amendment process. On
April 22, 1882, the Ohio legislature
produced an act familiarly known as the
Pond Law which was clearly designed as a
special tax on the sale of intoxicating
liquors. The Pond Law required that those
engaged in such sales pay an annual tax
of from $150 to $300, depending upon the
population of the community in which
they did business. The act also required the
posting of $1,000 bond by each such
individual as a guarantee of the faithful per-
formance of the act's requirements. The
Pond Law lasted only a little more than a
25. A. M. Hills, Life and
Labors of Mary A. Woodbridge (Ravenna, Ohio, 1895), 77, 82; Dorchester, Li-
quor Problem, 406-407; Cincinnati Commercial, March 2, 21,
1874.
26. Philip D. Jordan, Ohio Comes of
Age, 1873-1900 (Carl Wittke, ed., The History of the Stale of Ohio,
V, Columbus, 1943), 20-21. See also, Emilius 0. Randall and Daniel J. Ryan, History
of Ohio (New
York, 1912), IV, 325.
27. Joseph P. Smith, ed., History of
the Republican Party in Ohio ... (Chicago, 1898), I, 448.
|
month before being declared unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court as a vio- lation of the "no-license" clause.28 At least one member of the Ohio WCTU saw in the passage of this law an encouraging sign, an "opening wedge of legislation" which would eventually lead to prohibition. Mary A. Woodbridge, Mrs. McCabe's successor as president of the Ohio WCTU, on the other hand, saw in it only an at- tempt to produce what she called a "so-called 'temperance measure'" that would yet be mild enough that the Republican party's position with opponents of Temper- ance would not be damaged.29 Undaunted by the invalidation of the Pond Law, the Republicans at their annual convention held in Columbus June 7, 1882 passed a res- olution which called a little more specifically for a constitutional amendment which would allow special taxation of the liquor traffic: "The tax-paying people of the State demand that by specific taxation the traffic in intoxicating liquors shall be made to bear its share of the public burdens, and the Constitution in so far as it may be an obstacle in the way of the exercise by the people, through their representa- tives, of practical control over the liquor traffic, to the end that evils resulting there- from may be effectually provided against, should be amended at the earliest date provided by law."30 In her presidential address delivered slightly more than a week later, Mrs. Wood- bridge attacked the Republican position on six counts. First she said, "To tax a crime, thus virtually permitting it and licensing it, is a sin, which Christian women cannot condone." Second, "If the liquor traffic is not a crime, but is right, it should
28. Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, IV, 531, 532; see also, Logan County Index (Bellefontaine), June 1, 1882. 29. Minutes of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of the State of Ohio, at the Ninth Annual Meeting, Youngstown, June 13-16, 1882, p. 62. (Title varies. Hereafter these publications will be referred to as 0 WCTU Minutes with the year and page.) 30. Smith, Republican Party, 1, 459. |
Ohio WCTU 93
not be especially taxed; if
wrong, it should be prohibited." Third, "Though it might
close numbers of the so-called 'lower
saloons,' the higher would multiply their at-
traction, and an increased number would
become victims of their allurements. Our
sons do not learn to drink in the lower,
but the higher places. If any were legalized,
mothers would chose the lower."
Fourth, "The diminution in number of saloons
would be temporary and lead to final
increase. Those entering the temples of death,
would in a few years be unfit for
palatial residences and the lazar houses would be a
necessity." Fifth, "Were such
a law upon our statute books the State and liquor
traffic would be allied, and stand as
thief and partaker." Finally, "In the Mosaic
ritual, upon which we are told all law
is founded, sin is nowhere sanctioned or regu-
lated, but condemned and prohibited, and
God's blessing will not rest upon a nation
whose laws are not in harmony with
His."31
Fierce as opposition to special taxation
and implied licensing may have been, it
did not lead automatically and logically
to an immediate counter campaign for
statewide prohibition by the
introduction of an opposing constitutional amendment.
At least some, if not most, of the
impetus for this drive seems to have come from
outside Ohio. In 1879, a movement was
begun in Kansas which was to result in the
adoption of a prohibition amendment to
that state's constitution in 1880. This
movement differed from most earlier
campaigns for statewide prohibition in being
aimed at legislation designed to be more
permanent than a simple statute would be.
Temperance enthusiasts were quite frank
in declaring that such a move was de-
signed to make prohibition safe from
fluctuations in the attitudes of legislatures or
the unfavorable decisions of state
courts. Iowa followed the example of Kansas
early in 1882. For a while, prohibition
by amendment of the various state con-
stitutions appeared to Temperance
supporters to be the wave of the future. The
state WCTUs had taken leading roles in
both campaigns. Among the leaders of the
National WCTU, Mrs. J. Ellen Foster of
the Iowa Union was particularly noted for
her advocacy of this line of approach. A
contemporary Temperance historian said
of her that she was "pre-eminently
conspicuous" among all those of either sex who
were especially enthusiastic about this
new development.32
The Ohio WCTU convention of 1882 held in
June of that year received a special
communication from Mrs. Foster in which
she called upon the Ohio Union to "go to
work at once for State Constitutional
prohibition, no matter how far in the distance
it seems. Agitate, agitate, agitate.
This movement will not interfere with any other
lines of temperance work, whether
legislative or on the line of moral suasion, and
being non-partisan, it is particularly
adapted to be a woman's movement."33 The
group responded to Mrs. Foster's
suggestion by adopting, as part of its "Plan of
Work" for the coming year, the
statement "That we accept Mrs. J. E. Foster's rec-
ommendation of organized effort for a
constitutional amendment, forever prohibit-
ing the manufacture and sale of
distilled, fermented, and malt liquors, as a bever-
age, in the State of Ohio." The
sixth resolution passed by the convention was one
which called for such an amendment:
"We recognize Constitutional Prohibition as
the only complete remedy for the
terrible evils resulting from the traffic in and use
of intoxicants, and that we pledge
ourselves to work for its accomplishment." Thus
prohibition by amendment of the state
constitution was clearly adopted as a goal by
31. OWCTU Minutes, 1882, p. 23-24.
32. Dorchester, Liquor Problem, 418,
420-422, 497-500, 501.
33. OWCTU Minutes, 1882, p. 13.
94 OHIO HISTORY
the WCTU convention of June 1882, but
nowhere was it even implied that a cam-
paign for such an amendment was to begin
at once. It even appears that Mrs.
Woodbridge, as of June at any rate,
entertained some doubts as to whether the new
line of approach would work in Ohio. In
her presidential address she said of Kan-
sas and Iowa that these two states
"have such a party majority that they can risk the
loss of a few thousand votes without
defeat. In states more doubtful in the great
campaigns, the parties will never take
up a dangerous issue until forced to do so.
These two states have no overwhelming
forces massed in great cities to which all
else must bow. . . . What controls the
Crusade-State, baptized first of all into this
greatest reform of our day?
Cincinnati."34
Something obviously changed Mrs.
Woodbridge's mind between June and Octo-
ber, or at least encouraged her to think
of an immediate campaign. By mid-
October she was calling publicly for a
massive petition campaign to impel the Ohio
General Assembly to put a prohibitory
amendment to the Ohio constitution before
the people.35 What the "something" was
that changed Mrs. Woodbridge's mind
cannot be determined from the material
that has come to hand. Unfortunately the
Ohio WCTU minutes for 1883 are among the
missing. Possibly she may have be-
lieved that anti-license sentiment was
the cause for the Republicans' defeat in 1882
on the special tax issue. This, however,
is only conjecture. In any case, a campaign
was launched in October 1882 which by
February 1883 had produced petitions
bearing 157,000 signatures of adult
Ohians (76,000 of whom were male and there-
fore voters) asking that the General
Assembly put a prohibitory constitutional
amendment before the people of the
state.36 It was said that during those four
months the number of local unions
affiliated with the WCTU more than doubled,
making Ohio's the fastest growing Union
in the nation.37
The degree of influence which these
petitions may have had on the Republican
members of the General Assembly meeting
early in 1883 cannot be determined but
they must have had at least some weight.
In any case, it is certain that the question
of Temperance legislation was one with
which they continued to feel compelled to
grapple. Yet the Republicans were so
divided on the question that month after
month passed in angry discussion with no
coherent party position in prospect.38 By
March, however, Republican proposals for
constitutional amendments on the liquor
question had finally been distilled into
three which were thought to cover all the
major positions: one amendment would
permit complete legislative control of the
traffic, a second would allow licensing
of it, and a third would prohibit it entirely.
Almost another month was consumed in
arguments concerning these possibilities.
On April 4 the Ohio State Journal somewhat
sharply reminded the legislators that
any amendment to the constitution had to
be advertised at least six months before it
could be voted on and that there were
only five days left before that deadline would
be reached. That very day resolutions
passed both houses calling for the sub-
mission to the voters of two amendments;
one providing for legislative control and
specifically allowing taxation of the
traffic and a second calling for full con-
34. Ibid., 25, 43, 80.
35. Logan County Index (Bellefontaine),
Ocotber 19, 1882.
36. Samuel Unger, "A History of the
National WCTU" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio
State University, 1934), 47.
37. Hills, Woodbridge, 83.
38. Wilfred S. McCuskey, "The
Political Campaign of 1883 in Ohio" (unpublished M.A. thesis, The
Ohio State University, 1948), 21-23.
Ohio WCTU 95
stitutional prohibition. This action,
the Journal commented, came "to the great
surprise of everybody, and especially to
the members of the Legislature them-
selves." On the following day, a
resolution calling for a third amendment proposal
that would specifically authorize
license was defeated, apparently on the ground
that licensing was already provided for
in the first proposed amendment.39
If the passage of resolutions submitting
the two proposed constitutional amend-
ments to the people represented a
clarification of the Temperance question from the
Republican point of view, the passage of
the so-called Scott Law on April 17, 1883
had the effect of confusing the issue
again. In essence, the Scott Law was little
more than a reenactment of the ill-fated
Pond Law except that the tax was to be
$200 for all dealers without regard to
the size of the community in which they oper-
ated and that the provision calling for
the posting of bond was omitted.40 The
possi-
bilities of a predicament in this matter
had been seen by the Ohio State Journal as
early as mid-March. How could the
legislature pass a law levying a special tax on
the liquor traffic before it submitted a
constitutional amendment for popular ap-
proval which would give it the power to
pass such a law? So great was the Journal's
desire for a liquor tax law, however,
that it was able to condemn the house's initial
refusal to pass such a law on April 6 as
a "blunder" and within a week to argue that
the Scott Law would help to insure
adoption of the first proposed amendment.41
The passage of this law may have had the
effect of cancelling out any gratitude
which the Ohio WCTU might have felt for
the fact that it was Republican votes in
the legislature which had put
constitutional prohibition on the ballot. A resolution
passed at the Ohio Union's convention of
June 1883 coupled vociferous support for
the so-called "Second Amendment"
calling for prohibition with a resounding con-
demnation of both the Scott Law and the
so-called "First Amendment" repealing
the "no-license" clause. The
law and the proposed amendment, the resolution said,
were both "based on the principle
of raising revenue from crime and vice breeding
institutions, and in doing so, give
governmental sanction to a traffic that is wholly
evil."42 The
Republicans, on the other hand, were lavish in their praise of the Scott
Law and made it a cornerstone of their
campaign.43
Once the question of constitutional
prohibition was on the ballot, the Ohio
WCTU set to work for its adoption with
great energy. Then and later, the ladies re-
garded it as "their"
campaign.44 Then and later, most commentators seemed ready
to agree with them.45 When,
however, a nonpartisan state convention met at Co-
lumbus on July 24, 1883 to form a
semi-permanent organization in support of the
prohibitory amendment, the gathering
could bring itself to do no more than to ac-
knowledge that the movement for
constitutional prohibition had begun with the
WCTU and that the organization was
"a most invaluable auxiliary in carrying for-
ward the work to final victory."46
To this the WCTU replied in kind by speaking of
39. Ohio State Journal (Columbus),
March 8, April 4, 5, 6, 1883.
40. Randall and Ryan, History of
Ohio, IV, 532.
41. Ohio State Journal, March 12,
April 7, 10, 13, 1883.
42. Logan County Index, June 27,
1883.
43. Smith, Republican Party, I,
469.
44. OWCTU Minutes, 1884, pp.
38-39; 1888, p. 12; 1889, pp. 32-33; 1904, p. 12.
45. Ohio State Journal, July 25,
1883; Cleveland Leader, Ocober 3, 8, 1883; Jordan, Ohio Comes of Age,
177 178.
46. Ohio State Journal, July 25,
1883.
the "Amendment Association" formed at this convention as an auxiliary of the Union.47 Mrs. Woodbridge and her followers were chagrined to find that those politicians who had voted to submit the prohibitory amendment proposal to the voters appar- ently did not feel called upon to give it active support. In the face of what she claimed was unrelenting hostility to the second amendment on the part of all major newspapers in the state, Mrs. Woodbridge founded in mid-summer a weekly called the Amendment Herald, of which, according to her biographer, 200,000 copies were distributed weekly during the campaign, 100,000 by subscription. The same source maintains that ten thousand posters were put up and a corps of special speakers em- ployed.48 The Ohio State Journal noted in the middle of July that John P. St. John, the former governor of Kansas, had been engaged to speak for the proposed amend- ment "some ten or twelve times, at $50 a speech." Mrs. J. Ellen Foster was sched- uled to spend the month of September in Ohio, lecturing in support of the proposed amendment for "$25 per night, hotel bill or private entertainment for herself and her husband, and carriage hire." This, the Journal commented somewhat sourly, "looks like business in more ways than one."49 All this required money. Mrs. Woodbridge was later to mention most prominently "the grand man, generous
47. OWCTU Minutes, 1884, p. 39; Logan County Index, June 27, 1883. 48. Ibid.; Hills, Woodbridge, 85-87, 97-98. 49. Ohio State Journal, July 11, 1883. |
Ohio WCTU 97
Ferdinand Schumacher of Akron, who
poured his thousands into our treasury."
One post-election account claimed that
Schumacher had spent "fully $10,000 in the
movement." He was also the
Prohibition party candidate for governor in the same
election. Mrs. Woodbridge also singled
out "Mr. Rockefeller, of Cleveland" as a
special contributor. It was maintained,
however, that the primary souce of funds
was the numerous small donations of
churches, Sunday Schools, and individuals for
whom such giving meant real sacrifice.
The ladies in the Cuyahoga County Union
had even resolved to go without gloves
from June to October and donated "an
amount equal of the entire glove bill
for the year" to the campaign for the second
amendment.50
The Union women were not without other
support in their campaign. The Wit-
tenberg Synod of the Lutheran Church and
the Central Ohio Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church passed
resolutions urging support for the prohibition
amendment. "Most of the ministers
in the Central Ohio Conference," the same re-
port stated, "will postpone their
removal to their new appointments until after the
election in order to get in their vote
on the Amendment."51 Preachers of all Protes-
tant faiths seem to have been prominent
in support of the movement. In addition,
the Ohio WCTU was frank to admit that
the "Amendment Association" had played
a vital role, especially in counties
which the women's organization could not reach.
The Good Templars of Ohio, though they
"covered a much smaller territory" than
the former group, were also acknowledged
to have been of great help.52
The major political parties, in the
meantime, seem to have been primarily en-
gaged in evading the Temperance issue
instead of lining up solidly in opposition to
prohibition, as Mrs. Woodbridge charged.
Most Republicans appear to have fol-
lowed J. B. Foraker, the Republican
gubernatorial candidate, in maintaining that
the party had done its duty in
submitting the issue to the voters and that the ques-
tion of prohibition was now a
nonpartisan one. George Hoadly, the Democratic
candidate, on the other hand, rejected
both the Scott Law and the proposed second
amendment as Republican measures, while
the Democratic press was accused by its
opponents of avoiding the issue and of
standing as "mute as a wooden indian" on
the subject. One Republican paper went
so far as to maintain that even though the
Democratic party was publicly silent on
the matter, it was secretly helping the
amendment "wherever they can
without showing their hand" because the Demo-
crats realized "that the adoption
of the second amendment would render Republi-
can success in Ohio impossible for
several years to come."53
The result of the amendment campaign
came as a surprise to some people and as
a bitter disappointment to the ladies of
the Ohio WCTU. On the morning of elec-
tion day October 9, 1883 the Ohio
State Journal expressed doubt that the prohibi-
tory amendment would carry, but, it
added, "It is patent to the most casual observer
of the situation that there has been a
remarkable change in public opinion in regard
to prohibition within the last six
months." And even if the amendment did not
carry, those who had supported it, would
have nothing to be ashamed of. As the re-
sults were announced, the Logan
County Index of Bellefontaine saw in the "im-
50. OWCTU Minutes, 1884, p. 36. 40; Cleveland Leader, October 12, 1883;
Smith, Republican Party, I,
473; Logan County Index, June 27,
1883.
51. Ibid., October 3, 1883.
52. Cleveland Leader, October 7,
1883; OWCTU Minutes, 1884, p. 39.
53. McCuskey, "Campaign of
1883," 66; Cleveland Leader, October 2, 3, 1883; Logan County
Index,
June 13, 1883.
98 OHIO
HISTORY
mense" vote for the second
amendment "one of the surprises of the election." The
Cleveland Leader, believing that
the second amendment had passed, remarked,
"Hereafter it will hardly be in
order to speak of the citizens of Ohio who favor con-
stitutional prohibition as a few fanatics.'
"54
On election day the prohibitory
amendment was estimated to have received more
than 300,000 affirmative votes, a
majority of those cast on the question. The
OWCTU was later to adopt the figure
323,189 as its official number. The problem
was that this majority was not large
enough. In order to be adopted, the amend-
ment needed to receive a total
affirmative vote equal to a majority of all votes cast
in the election. This it had failed to
do. One Republican paper noted that some
150,000 Republican voters had
"refrained from supporting prohibition.... Had
this vote been added to that actually
cast for the second amendment, and had the
Prohibitionists voted with the
Republicans for State and local officers, the doom of
the liquor traffic would have been
sealed in Ohio at once and forever."55 The tech-
nicalities of the counting procedure had
been a source of confusion to the voters
throughout the campaign. It had to be
explained several times that the amendment
would not be helped by a voter's failure
to vote for a party ticket: all votes cast
would be counted in the total which
would decide the exact number of votes needed
for adoption. Similarly, failure to vote
on the amendment question would actually
count against the amendment since it
would raise the number of affirmative votes
needed for adoption without contributing
one of those affirmative votes. It was the-
oretically quite possible for the
amendment to fail of adoption without receiving a
single "no" vote. The ladies
of the WCTU gave evidence of being unable (or per-
haps unwilling) to understand this
procedure. Mrs. Woodbridge's immediate reac-
tion was to write in her Amendment
Herald that supporters of the prohibitory
amendment "were outwitted, sold
out, cheated, and swindled by the politicians-
that is all." Henceforth it became
standard doctrine among the members of the
Union that the needed ballots were
"certainly cast" but were "ignominiously
counted out by supporters of the liquor
traffic." At least one Republican news-
paper at the time thought there might be
some substance to this charge in Cleve-
land. The WCTU, however, did not accept
the Leader's suggestion and demand a
recount.56
If the actual vote cast for the
prohibitory amendment remained a matter for some
doubt, there could be none concerning
the defeat of the Republicans. This defeat
was clear even to Republicans in
Columbus as early as 1:00 A.M. on the morning of
October 10, and there was little
disagreement with the idea that "the temperance
question is largely responsible for the
defeat." Cleveland Republicans also felt that
the belief on the part of the voting
public that Republicans were solidly in support
of the second amendment had a
"damaging effect upon our whole ticket."57 A his-
torian of the Ohio Republican party was
later to maintain that the effect of the
Temperance question was indiscriminately
bad; the minority of Republican candi-
54. Ohio State Journal, October 9, 1883; Logan County Index, October
11, 1883; Cleveland Leader, Oc-
tober 10, 1883.
55. Ohio State Journal, October 11, 1883; OWCTU Minutes, 1884, p. 70.
56. Cleveland Leader, October 13,
1883; Ohio State Journal, July 24, August 18, October 9, 1883; Hills,
Woodbridge, 94, 159-160; OWCTU Minutes, 1884, p. 70; 1898,
p. 33; 1904, p. 12.
57. Cleveland Leader, October 10,
13, 1883; Ohio State Journal, October 11, 1883.
Ohio WCTU 99
dates who had declined to discuss the
question publicly "in the end were beaten as
badly as the boldest advocates."58
Yet while blaming the Temperance question for
their defeat, Republican papers were
generally very mild in their criticisms of those
who had supported the prohibitory
amendment. The Ohio State Journal com-
plained that the prohibition campaign
had actually been too nonpartisan since no
credit was accorded the Republican party
for putting the amendment on the ballot
in the first place. In Cleveland, it was
said, the presence of the ladies at the polls ac-
tively campaigning for the prohibitory
amendment allowed the Democrats to start
the rumor that these women intended to
start a new woman's crusade. According
to the Leader, "Many Germans
and Bohemians were heard to say that they voted
the Democratic ticket merely on account
of'those crusade women.' "59
As might be surmised from her editorial
remarks in the Amendment Herald noted
earlier, Mary A. Woodbridge reacted to
the defeat of the prohibitory amendment
with considerable bitterness. This
feeling was particularly directed against the Re-
publicans. She accused them of
deliberately passing the Scott Law, knowing that it
was probably unconstitutional, in order
that the people of Ohio might see a definite
reduction in their tax rates and be more
inclined to support the first amendment
which would have legalized such a tax.
She further accused them of deliberately
confusing the issue by submitting two
proposed amendments to the Ohio con-
stitution instead of the one which alone
really mattered. Democrats and Republi-
cans, she said, had both worked against
the cause by printing their party tickets with
the spaces after the prohibitory
amendment left blank. Therefore the OWCTU had
been forced to print tickets of both
parties with the word "yes" filled in at the appro-
priate place. After this was done, it
was discovered that someone had "tampered
with" the printing plates and the
whole printing had to be called back and reissued.
In addition to all this, "telegrams
were retained, letters miscarried and mail stacked
up in a city postoffice, till it seemed
as if men in places of public trust were in league
with the powers of darkness to defeat
the cause of temperance and righteousness."
These experiences, her biographer says,
caused Mrs. Woodbridge to change her po-
litical affiliation. Until "the
latter part of the year 1883," he says, she had always
been in the "fullest sympathy"
with the Republican party. But the behavior of the
Republicans in the campaign of 1883
"gave a rude shock to her faith in her own
dear party that filled her alike with
pain and disgust." She announced her change
of heart in an editorial printed in the Amendment
Herald of April 17, 1884, which
castigated the Republicans in the
General Assembly for their refusal to resubmit to
the people the question of
constitutional prohibition. When, later in the year, "the
leaders of the National WCTU crossed the
Rubicon and marched into the Prohibi-
tion camp," her biographer says,
"Mrs. Woodbridge was among them."60 In view of
this account, it is difficult to explain
how the name "Mrs. Mary A. Woodbridge, of
Ohio" could have been listed as the
first of five secretaries of the national conven-
tion of the Prohibition party which had
met at Cleveland on June 17, 1880.61
The campaign conducted by Frances E.
Willard to bring the National WCTU to
an endorsement of the Prohibition party
is beyond the scope of this monograph and
58. Smith, Republican Party, I,
473.
59. Ohio State Journal, October
11, 1883; Cleveland Leader, October 10, 1883.
60. Hills, Woodbridge, 84-88,
111-120.
61. Cyclopedia of Temperance and
Prohibition (New York, 1891), 567.
100 OHIO
HISTORY
is treated in detail elsewhere.62 The
Ohio WCTU seems to have taken no official
position in the early skirmishing on
this question. By its convention of June 1884,
however, it was in a different mood. In
her presidential address, Mary Woodbridge
referred to "a party [which she did
not name] indifferent to an interest which more
than all others is injurious to the
people, is untrue to that people, and the nation is
unsafe in its hands." Apparently
the delegates thought she was referring to the Re-
publicans. Among the convention's list
of formal resolutions was one which "Re-
solved, That we express our hearty and grateful appreciation to
that political party
which has adopted as part of its
platform the prohibition of the liquor traffic."63
This resolution, though it does not
mention the Prohibition party by name, is still
considerably more specific than a
similar resolution which caused a furor before
being passed by the National Union at
its St. Louis convention of the following
October.
What happened in Ohio immediately after
this is not as clear as one might wish.
What is clear from the records of the
OWCTU is that at the state convention of 1884
Mary A. Woodbridge announced that she
would not stand for reelection and was
replaced as president by Mrs. Ellen J.
Phinney of Cleveland. In the minutes of the
convention, it is implied that Mrs.
Woodbridge made this move because of ill
health,64 but her biographer indicated
that the move was made because of her dis-
satisfaction with the strength of the
support she had received from the convention in
regard to her request for an endorsement
of the Prohibition party. In any case,
Mary Woodbridge resigned her editorship
of the Amendment Herald on July 26,
1884, apparently because of a statement
issued two days earlier by the Ohio Union's
new officers explaining that the action
of the convention of the previous June did
not bind the Ohio Union to an allegiance
to any political party.65 Thus the stage
was set for a full-blown confrontation
at the Ohio Union's Kenton convention of
June 1885 over the question of endorsing
the Prohibition party, no matter how
obliquely.
Two reports of the resolutions committee
were presented to the convention. The
majority report called for endorsement
of the Prohibition party. The minority re-
port called for a continuation of what
was termed the Union's "non-partisan" ap-
proach of the past. Unfortunately the
official minutes of the 1885 convention are
also among the missing and so the exact
text of the resolution in question cannot be
determined. It is evident, however, that
the question of which report was to be
adopted prompted a lively debate. Those
favoring the minority report appeared to
be outnumbered. The majority report also
had the active and vocal support of
Mary Woodbridge and of Frances Willard,
who was there to deliver the traditional
annual address. A final vote on the matter
was deferred to the following morning.
In her address delivered in the evening
after the debate, Frances Willard argued
earnestly in favor of official support
for the Prohibition party. On the following
morning, the majority report, calling
for a resolution of support for that party, was
adopted by a vote of 96 to 47. In the
afternoon, an election of officers was held in
62. Mary Earhart, Frances Williard:
From Prayer to Politics (Chicago,
1944), 210-218: Helen E. Tyler,
Where Prayer and Purpose Meet: The
WCTU Story, 1874-1949 (Evanston,
1949), 65-68; Norton H. Mez-
vinsky, "The White Ribbon
Reform" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universtiy of Wisconsin, 1959),
196.
63. OWCTU Minutes, 1884, p. 55,
60.
64. Ibid., 61, 44.
65. Hills, Woodbridge, 127-128.
Ohio WCTU 101
which Mary A. Woodbridge was again
elected president of the Ohio WCTU.66 The
only account of the convention available
does not reveal whether Mrs. Phinney re-
fused to stand for reelection or whether
she did so and was defeated.
The delegates from the Cleveland Union
were most unhappy with the result of
the vote on the resolutions. So also was
the entire Cleveland Union. At a meeting
held on the afternoon of July 13, 1885,
the Cleveland Union voted to dissolve its
connection with both the National and
Ohio WCTUs. Speaking in favor of the se-
cession resolution, Mrs. Ellen J.
Phinney maintained that, although the National
resolution passed at St. Louis in the
fall of 1884 and the Ohio resolution passed at
Kenton in the preceding June were
susceptible to the "widest possible inter-
pretation," these actions had
alienated many people who were most willing to sup-
port prohibition and had in fact done so
in the campaign of 1883. If the work of
the Union were not to be further
injured, the Cleveland Union must disassociate it-
self from these resolutions in support
of the Prohibition party. One clergyman who
was a member of the local Union's
advisory board argued that only by such an ac-
tion would the churches of Cleveland
again be open to speakers from the WCTU as
they had been in the past. Another
clergyman predicted that the days of the
WCTU's influence were over unless the
Prohibition party association were repu-
diated. A third pointed out the
descrepancy between the more than 300,000 non-
partisan votes polled for the second
amendment in 1883 and the 16,000 votes which
represented the Ohio Prohibition party's
highest attainment. Several letters were
read from members forced to be absent
from the meeting expressing support for se-
cession. One of these came from
"Mrs. J. D. Rockefeller." Present as a guest was
Mrs. J. Ellen Foster of Iowa who had
touched off the first spark which led to the
amendment campaign. While refusing to
speak at length until after the vote was
taken, Mrs. Foster nevertheless pointed
out that the action contemplated did not
represent an endorsement of the
Republican party but only a return to the non-
partisan orientation which had been so
successful for the WCTU in the past. The
resolution of secession passed by a vote
of 31 to 3.67
Mrs. Woodbridge maintained in her open
letter announcing this secession that
the Cleveland Union had affiliated with
the Ohio WCTU only within the past "five
or six years" and was now simply
returning to its former independence.
Furthermore, the Cleveland Union was
known to have an advisory board of men.
The membership at large, she said, knew
little of the actual work of the WCTU
since the Cleveland executive board ran
things to suit itself.68 Whether this
line of
argument impressed anyone is unknown. It
is evident, however, that the Union lost
several women who had formerly been
prominent among its leadership, not the
least of whom was Ellen J. Phinney who
had functioned as Mrs. Woodbridge's right
hand support in the campaign of 1883. It
may also be doubted that the withdrawal
of Mrs. Rockefeller's financial
assistance was to be taken lightly.
The Ohio WCTU exacted a rather strange
revenge on Ellen J. Phinney: they tried
to and eventually succeeded in erasing
her name from its memory. The official
seventy-fifth anniversary history of the
Ohio Union nowhere mentions her name.
As early as 1892, Mrs. Henrietta Monroe,
Mrs. Woodbridge's eventual successor as
president, spoke of Mary A. Woodbridge
as having been president for seven years.
66. Kenton Republican, June 18,
19, 1885.
67. Cleveland Leader and Herald, July
14, 1885.
68. Hills, Woodbridge, 147-156.
102 OHIO HISTORY
This was not accurate. She served from
1879 to 1884, which is five years, and an
additional year from 1885 to 1886. Mrs.
Woodbridge gave the annual address for
1892 and was at times seated among the
delegates.69 One cannot help wondering if
she was present when the statement was
made.
The campaign for state constitutional
prohibition in Ohio in 1883 ended in frus-
tration and bitterness. A later
president of the Ohio WCTU referred, in 1898, to
the "Second Amendment
Campaign" of 1883 as "probably the greatest political
movement ever attempted by women."70
Perhaps it was-as of 1898. But the en-
dorsement of the Prohibition party which
arose as a result of the ladies' frustration
at their defeat in 1883 could not but
put a complete end to any influence the Ohio
WCTU might have had with an Ohio
Republican party which tended to blame the
OWCTU's prohibitory amendment idea for
their own defeat of 1883. Eventually
the Ohio WCTU was to quadruple its
membership to more than 40,000 by 1920.
By 1920 also they were to see their
dreams realized with the adoption of both Prohi-
bition and Woman Suffrage as amendments
to the Federal Constitution. But in
these victories the Ohio WCTU could only
share: in both campaigns they had
served only as handmaidens to the Ohio
Anti-Saloon League and the Ohio Woman
Suffrage Association. Never again did
the Ohio WCTU wield the independent in-
fluence and power it had displayed in
the prohibition amendment campaign of
1883.
69. Mary B. Ervin, History of the
Ohio Woman's Christian Temperance Union (Columbus, 1949);
OWCTU Minutes, 1892, p. 37, 156.
70. Ibid., 1898, p. 32.
F
M WHITAKER
Ohio WCTU and the Prohibition
Amendment Campaign of 1883
The Woman's Christian Temperance Union
may be said to be a product of Ohio in
at least two ways One, its foundation is the only lasting
result of a phenomenon of
the winter and spring of 1873-1874 known
as the Woman's Crusade, which
achieved its first success and national
recognition in Ohio This movement, in
which bands of respectable ladies
marched in groups upon saloons in various loca-
tions, singing, praying, and exhorting
both the dispenser and consumer of alcoholic
beverages to cease and desist, attracted
attention first at Hillsboro and recorded its
initial success, the closing of all the
liquor dispensaries in town, at Washington
Court House Two, an organization officially calling itself the Woman's
Christian
Temperance Union was first formally
instituted in Ohio in June 1874 A
national
organization of the same name was not
formed until the following November in a
meeting held at Cleveland Yet the WCTU was never as strong in Ohio as
in several
other states One key reason for this may be found in an examination of the
devel-
opment and consequences of a campaign
mounted in 1883 to add an amendment to
Ohio's constitution forever prohibiting
the manufacture and sale of all intoxicating
liquors within the boundaries of the
state This campaign seems in retrospect
to
represent the peak of the Ohio WCTU's
independent influence and power.
The Ohio WCTU was not at its inception
an organization which could be called
distinctly prohibitionist, i e , committed
to the total abolition of the liquor traffic.
There was, in fact, a good deal of
debate in the group's earliest years as to the pro-
priety of any sort of political activity
on the part of those who called themselves
ladies
The debate began in the course of the Woman's Crusade itself Those who
opposed the movement often claimed that
it was some sort of political trick aimed
at influencing the municipal elections
to be held that spring; those who favored it,
or were at least not openly hostile,
tended to maintain that the Crusade's success de-
pended upon the women's avoidance of
politics and political entanglements
Some
support for the opponents' position was
provided by the readiness of the ladies and
especially their gentlemen allies to
resort to the use of legal pressure when prayer
did not readily produce success Support is also provided by the fact that
the move-
ment seemed to die out after the April
1874 municipal elections, many of which
Mr
Whitaker is an Assistant Professor of History on the Marion Campus of
The Ohio State University.