World Peace And Suffrage.

New York Times 100 years ago today, May 30, 1913:
Women Urged to Seek Vote as a Weapon Against War.
To the Editor of The New York Times:
    I am very much of an "anti" myself, and the "Votes for Women" never appealed to me. But I should be glad to compromise with myself if I could know that the main object of the woman suffrage movement is to bring about international peace and good-will among nations. It strikes me that the whole suffrage movement would gain in favor and popularity among thinking men if it possessed the criterion of peace rather than militancy. If the suffragettes would say that they want to vote in order to stop warfare, to influence manhood in general to stop killing each other, they would get all the sympathy they want for their cause.
    I venture to say that the suffragettes could do more to bring about international disarmament than all the men combined. Suppose we grant the "Votes for Women." Suppose women vote and send their representatives to Congress. Is it not natural that they will employ every effort to preach international peace? It is their womanly instinct to do so. We argue, among others, against the suffrage because we say if women get the vote they should also he able to defend the country in case of war. It is evident that we cannot send women to war. It is against common sense, and it is physically impossible. We would not want to sacrifice their lives, the lives of those whom we want to raise good, healthy children. The suffragettes, no doubt, know these facts, and as a consequence they should argue in such a way that they do not want to go to war, for if they do get the vote war will be altogether eliminated through their great influence.
    Let the peace advocates work together with the suffragettes and help each other's cause. I am positive that if these two movements join forces the two most vital questions of the twentieth century will be realized.
            EUGENE S. LUCAS.
            New York, May 28, 1913.